Tim Collins: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on her promotion. As she and I have something in common, in that we both have young children, I am sure that our commitment to raising educational standards for everybody in this country is shared, and is total. On the subject of truancy in East Anglia and elsewhere, does she agree that one of the measures necessary to reduce truancy is to give children a disciplined environment where they feel safe? I am sure that parents in East Anglia and elsewhere will agree with what she said, as reported in one of this morning's newspapers:
	"Head teachers must be able to exclude difficult pupils."
	Why, then, earlier this week, did the Minister in her Department block an amendment in the other place that would have given head teachers the final say on exclusions?

Angela Watkinson: I too welcome the Secretary of State to her new post. Most schools take bullying very seriously, and their policies enable victims to report incidents on a confidential basis. They also provide staff and pupil mentors to counsel both victims and bullies, which is important. The most insidious form of bullying, however, is unseen and sometimes occurs outside school. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the important role of parents in tackling this problem? Without that role, policies implemented in schools would be hampered. In the interests of ensuring that parents accept responsibility for their children's unacceptable behaviour and for trying to modify it, will the Secretary of State give teachers the freedom and flexibility to draw up enforceable home-school contracts and to have the final say on exclusions, by scrapping independent appeal panels?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, who is sitting beside me, tells me that the facility in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is indeed a very good one. Perhaps I shall have the chance to visit it at some point. I know that the hon. Gentleman shows a consistent interest in manufacturing, and he is right to draw attention to its needs and to say that we need to encourage young people into the sector. The Government are setting up sector skills councils, which bring together employers to identify the appropriate skill needs and to think of ways of tailoring to their needs courses that will be appreciated by young people.
	The sector skills agreement, reached by the sector skills council—which, unfortunately, I believe that the hon. Gentleman's party is set to abolish—provides a means for employers not only to shape training, but to challenge each other to work together and put funding directly into training, which is relevant to industry's needs and also offers ways into employment and future career progression for young people.

Tony Cunningham: A big thank you to my hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply. West Cumbria is one place in the country that does not have easy access to a university. Progress is being made in that direction, but I ask my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State to take a personal interest in ensuring that the dream of a university in west Cumbria, which has long been held by many people, becomes a reality.

Kim Howells: I take great pleasure in assuring my hon. Friend that I will take a personal interest in that matter, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, too. There is no doubt that universities are great economic drivers, and regions that do not have universities are the poorer without them. In view of the great manufacturing and extractive industrial history of my hon. Friend's constituency and the surrounding area, the potential for a university there should be tapped, and we must ensure that it is. That applies especially to parts of industry that are currently in decline, such as the nuclear industry at the moment. It could provide a great research base for a university in Cumbria.

Stephen Twigg: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When we look at the A-level figures, it is quite striking that there has been a slow decline in the number of young people taking A-levels in modern foreign languages. At the same time, however, the number going into higher education to study modern foreign languages has been broadly stable, and the number combining languages with other subjects in higher education is increasing. There are lessons to be learned from that positive experience of higher education, which we can apply to A-level study, as my hon. Friend suggests.

James Clappison: Is the Government's decision to remove a modern foreign language from the core subjects of the national curriculum likely to improve the situation? The Minister has already admitted that the current situation is fairly dismal, with the number of students opting for foreign languages at A-level declining year on year.

Andrew MacKinlay: Should we not be ashamed of the poverty of our foreign language teaching in this country? I encourage the Minister to follow up what he said at the end of that answer. There is a great deal of evidence to show that the neurological development of children makes it much easier for them to learn foreign languages at infant and junior school level. That is buttressed by evidence from Welsh language schools, Scottish Gaelic schools and Gaeltacht in the Republic of Ireland, showing that people who learn foreign languages at a very early age prove more successful across the whole range of academia. We should therefore be teaching French, German and other languages in our infant and junior schools for children of all abilities. That is where we need to make progress.

Kim Howells: Yes, and I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about trying to work with all the bodies in his constituency and the wider region to try to increase applications to university. He knows, as I do, that the task is very complex, because it means addressing the most pernicious problem of poverty of aspirations in so many of our communities in areas such as the one that he represents. That is the great task before us, but I am convinced that all of the measures we have introduced will help.

Chris Grayling: This is bad news for our student teachers—fourth year students who have already run up the costs of three years at university, and who will now see a significant increase in their debt. That means that fewer people will come forward to do those courses. Where will it stop? Will it be radiographers and doctors next? Do the Government plan to remove all the concessions on fees? When will the Government understand that it is our public services and recruitment to teaching and national health service jobs that will suffer from their ill-thought-out policies on fees? I say to all those student teachers who will suffer from this measure that the Conservatives in government will reverse them.

Margaret Hodge: The Department for Education and Skills and the Food Standards Agency assessed secondary school lunch standards and reported their findings in July 2004. As a result, we have invested £1.1 million to tighten up current secondary school lunch standards to reduce sugar, salt and fat intakes; to evaluate primary school lunch standards; to improve the training and support for school catering staff; to support head teachers and governors to purchase in a better way a healthy lunch service; and to set standards for other school food.

Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the local criminal justice board in North Yorkshire has started working systematically with crime reduction partnerships in the county, including of course the Safer York partnership, to ensure that the work of courts and prosecutors complements and supports the work of other agencies fighting crime? Does she think that encouragement should be given to Crown Prosecution Service offices in all parts of the country to do such work?

Paul Tyler: In the context of the debate on licensing next Tuesday, can we have a more measured Government response on the issue—from the Home Secretary, I presume—than we have just had from the Leader of the House? Has he noticed that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who I presume is not just an opportunist, has this morning appealed for the changes in licensing to go slowly? A full report in the Evening Standard today has the headline, "Our cells overflow with drunk yobs". What is the Government's response to that? It is not just politicians but the police who are asking for the process to be slowed.
	The Leader of the House said that legislation on the European constitution would be introduced sooner rather than later. Can he be more specific? When does he anticipate that the Committee stage, which will presumably take place on the Floor of the House, will be completed and, after a necessary delay, when does he expect Third Reading? What date has he written in for completion of proceedings in the House of Lords? If he thinks that that is all going to be completed before 6 April, which many of us have in our diaries as a possible date for the Dissolution of Parliament, surely he has got another thing coming. What advice has he given the Prime Minister on those dates?
	Finally, did the Leader of the House notice that this morning an important decision was made about trans-Europe co-operation on serious crime? He may recall that a schoolgirl from my constituency, Caroline Dickinson, was murdered in Brittany nine years ago. Her father, mother and I have been pressing ever since for better co-operation across Europe, particularly on issues of DNA. This morning, an important development took place, and that co-operation is guaranteed in future. That is good news, but it has taken nine years to get there. Can the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to give us a statement on that issue?

Peter Hain: I understand the predicament of Caroline Dickinson's family and I know that they appreciate the consistent support that the hon. Gentleman has given them, as do his constituents. The Home Secretary will want to consider the issue in the light of his intervention.
	On licensing and binge drinking, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner told the Evening Standard today that
	"If 24-hour drinking came in, we would need to reinforce staffing levels in the early hours."
	The proposals are not for 24-hour drinking in every pub and club across the land. They put sensible flexibility in the hands of local authorities and local police, so local residents can apply immediate pressure if they think that there are abuses. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal Democrat who believes in decentralisation and empowering local communities and residents, would be right behind the measure, instead of jumping on the Tory bandwagon. When the fuss has died down, people will realise that they not only have more power under the legislation for flexible and sensible licensing hours so that, for example, theatre-goers can pop in for a final pint or a glass of wine before they go home, but more power to crack down on yobbery and the drunken, violent minority who all come out of our pubs at the same time of night. I am sure that he will want to review his apoplectic intervention in the light of that common-sense advice.
	On the European Union Bill, I cannot be more specific, but hon. Gentleman made an intriguing observation about the coming months. I do not know where he got 6 April from—perhaps he is better informed than the Leader of the House. I do not think that there would be a problem from the Liberal Democrats, but it would be interesting to know whether the official Opposition would give a cast-iron guarantee to speed the Bill through the House. If they did so, they and the shadow Leader of the House would have an opportunity to keep pressing me every week on when the referendum will take place. However, there is no such offer from Conservative Front Benchers to help with the passage of the Bill.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to discuss the conduct and stewardship of our police forces, against the background of concern among Members across the political spectrum about the professional standards department—it used to be known as CIB3—of the Metropolitan police? It is felt that there are police officers who have been suspended for an inordinately long time, often unjustly, and that some police officers are in prison who are innocent and that some people who have put them there are guilty. This is an unspoken and unrehearsed issue, but it needs to come out into the open, because there is widespread concern not only about the Metropolitan police, but about two decades of very poor stewardship of the Sussex police, for example, and systemic failures there.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Leader of the House concerned about the unfair treatment being meted out by Government to local authorities that have responsibility for housing, as they are being denied the resources given by Government or the ability to retain for themselves the money that they get from the rent from municipal property, as against the treatment of registered social landlords, who are treated much more favourably than housing authorities? Macclesfield, which is debt-free, is being forced to dispose of its housing stock through large- scale voluntary transfer against my wishes and the wishes of the council and council tenants. It is being forced to do that because it is not being allowed to keep the necessary sum to maintain and refurbish its council housing stock.

Peter Hain: Obviously, we will want to assess, as will the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, the situation after the Iraqi elections on 30 January. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to applaud the fact that recent polling in Iraq shows that more than 80 per cent. of Iraqis intend to vote if they can and that 111 groups with almost 8,000 candidates are standing in the national elections and a further 11,000 candidates standing in the provincial and Kurdish regional government elections, and a third of all those candidates are women. That provides an opportunity for a major democratic advance in Iraq out of the tyranny that was overthrown when Saddam was deposed and out of the new investment that is now taking place. I accept that the situation is very difficult and that the insurgents and terrorists are seeking to destroy that prospect of democracy, but I would have thought that my hon. Friend would want to support it and to hope and work for the success of the elections on 30 January. After those elections, I am sure that the House will be informed by the Foreign Secretary of the outcome and where future policy might go.

Alistair Carmichael: On the subject of our sitting hours, may I gently point out to the Leader of the House that to this particular Scottish Member it makes not a whit of difference whether we finish at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock on a Thursday, because neither time will allow me to get home on a Thursday night?
	I associate myself with the call by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for a statement on the operation of Post Office card accounts, and bring to the House's attention the situation that recently faced a post office in my constituency that was flooded after the very high tides resulting from the bad weather and had its electricity supply knocked out. As a result, pensioners in that part of Orkney were unable to get their pensions because they only had access through the computer system, which was obviously not available to the post office. Surely that situation is not acceptable.

Adam Ingram: This debate on personnel issues takes place against a backdrop of intense public scrutiny of the alleged misconduct of some soldiers in Iraq. I am sure the House will appreciate—this is in line with your ruling, Mr. Speaker—that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the current case, or on other ongoing investigations.
	The Prime Minister was right yesterday to draw a distinction between tyranny and democracy and to speak of the way in which we in this country seek at all times to bring wrongdoers to justice. He was also right to echo views expressed by the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, drawing attention to the fact that some 65,000 British soldiers have served in Iraq with distinction. They have done so with courage, exhibiting the highest levels of professionalism in helping to deliver the peace and stability so earnestly sought by the Iraqi people.
	Another issue is currently exciting the minds of some hon. Members and the media. It relates, of course, to the accusation that Ministers are indifferent to our serving soldiers and other personnel who have been injured in conflict. The charge that Ministers are uncaring and unmindful of the needs of personnel as they recuperate is, in my view, an unwarranted slur that could not be further from the truth. I have personally met soldiers, both in theatre and back at their home bases, who were recovering from their injuries. I have also visited field hospitals to pay tribute to the sterling efforts of our medical personnel, who work in what are sometimes difficult circumstances but still deliver the highest level of care to our injured troops—and, on occasion, provide medical care for injured civilians.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has visited the Ministry of Defence hospital unit at Selly Oak hospital, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), is due to go there shortly. The visit was planned some time ago, well before the recent furore.
	I intend to deal later with the general issues relating to the Defence Medical Services, but I want to make it clear at the outset that the consequences of conflict, whether death or injury, weigh heavily on the minds of those who commit the armed forces to action. To suggest otherwise is ill-judged, misplaced and, not to put too fine a point on it, offensive. Having said that, I should add that today's personnel debate is timely.
	The pace of change across the globe is clear for all to see and shows no sign of slowing down. That offers special challenges to our armed forces—challenges to which they have risen magnificently—and places a special responsibility on the Government to ensure that our services are properly structured to face the world of tomorrow. The focus of our people policies is on providing better trained and more flexibly deployable forces. Together with our continuing investment in new platforms and technology, they will deliver the military capability that we need today and in the foreseeable future.
	Current threats to international peace and security are obvious to us all. In recent years, terrorist groups who respect neither international borders nor the sanctity of human life have aspired to inflict even greater levels of destruction to achieve their warped objectives. In weak and failing states, mismanagement and corruption can lead to poverty, hunger, disease and the collapse of law and order. They pose significant challenges for the international community. In some cases, they provide safe havens from which terrorist groups and those involved in organised crime can easily operate and recruit. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a serious concern and a serious threat to international security.
	With our allies and partners, we must confront and tackle the causes of instability in the world, as well as its consequences. That means working with our European, NATO and United Nations partners to resolve conflict, build peace and lay foundations for democracy. That is what we have been doing in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.
	To ensure that we are best placed to meet those challenges, the Ministry of Defence has embarked on an ambitious modernisation and rebalancing of the armed forces. Each of our services needs to prepare its men and women to meet changing security challenges in less predictable and more complex operational environments. We need the right number of people available in the right place and the right time, equipped with the right skills. That is how we will deliver military effect.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Lady has not been listening to the other answers that have been given on this issue. In recent times, we have been very successful in our recruitment campaigns overall. That means that we have had to adjust the training structures to meet the increased numbers of recruits coming in. That involves taking experienced personnel away from the front line and putting them back into the training environment at a time when the front line in certain key areas is exceptionally busy. To pause is therefore the way to get the best adjustment. It was not a freeze, although I know that the hon. Lady will keep on using that word no matter how many explanations she is given.
	I am trying to explain how our success has meant that we have to ensure that we get the balance right between the training environment and our front-line demands. If we look back to the exercise known as "Front Line First" which took place in the 1990s, there was a thinning out of the training environment resulting in a significant reduction in the ratio between instructors and trainees. We have had to address that. During my time, we have put a considerably more money back into the training environment and increased the number of instructors, in order to strike a better balance.

Adam Ingram: I believe that it is important to get the names right. That is why the Army spent so much time examining the issue. There was a whole process of consultation within the Army, which the Army Board took into account. Not everyone agrees with what we are doing—[Interruption.] It is a big change. History shows that there is always a great debate whenever that happens. It was the same when the Conservatives decided to integrate the Gordon's into the Highlands. There was a big furore in Scotland about that, but a brave and, I think, justifiable decision was taken because of the need to bring about that effective change.
	As to the Secretary of State becoming involved, we have said consistently that it is a matter best left for the Army, and we should tread warily and not become over-involved. That is particularly true when many people believe that this is an election year. That may or may not be the case. We should not be seen to be playing with this matter for political purposes, but I recognise the strong feelings expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and others in Wales. Their representations will be made available to the senior military personnel who deal with these matters. It will be for them to decide. As I said, it would be wrong to bring political pressure into the debate because we would then be criticised for over-interference.

Adam Ingram: I am not giving way.
	We recognise that the restructuring of the armed forces has not been welcomed by everyone, but we believe that it is necessary to ensure that our forces can meet the challenges that they will face tomorrow in the same way that they are succeeding in the challenges that they face today. Let me spend a few moments on those challenges. We currently have some 32,000 personnel deployed in 10 countries around the world.

Adam Ingram: Let me say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that he will have an opportunity to enter the debate later and I suggest that he does so. As to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), I know that he is a member of the Select Committee and that he has been highly critical about to the subject that we are discussing now. I was rather surprised that he did not attend the meeting to put me on the rack. That is what Select Committees are for, so I do not know why he was not there. He has had plenty of opportunities to raise issues with me. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he can enter the debate later.

Adam Ingram: One thing that I certainly can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am not afraid.
	Since the tragic Indian ocean tsunami, UK personnel have acted quickly and effectively to provide assistance to those affected. Working closely with the Department for International Development in support of the UN, our personnel have provided much-needed skill, expertise and equipment. A C-17, TriStar and five C-130 air transport planes have been made available to DFID to assist in delivering new UN aid and heavy equipment to the region. I visited Brize Norton earlier this week to thank the air crew, ground crew and planning staff for all their efforts over recent weeks.
	In addition to the RAF contribution, HMS Chatham, which has two Lynx helicopters, and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Diligence, which is co-operating closely with a reconnaissance team on the ground, are providing assistance in restoring livelihoods, schools and medical facilities to villages on the east coast of Sri Lanka. Engineering support has also been deployed to the Maldives to assist in repairs to generators and desalination equipment. Instrumental in co-ordinating the military response with DFID and regional government and military representatives have been the three military observation, liaison and reconnaissance teams deployed to the region. I know that the whole House will pay tribute to all of those engaged in the massive humanitarian effort and to those members of the armed forces who have made such an invaluable contribution.
	There are more than 8,000 personnel deployed on Operation Telic. In difficult conditions, they are successfully providing direct security assistance to the Iraqi authorities and building the capacity of Iraqi security forces to take on that role. The relatively stable security environment in our area of operations is a testament, I believe, to our armed forces' achievement. It has enabled progress to be made on the reconstruction of schools and hospitals and the restoration of water and power. Our people are making a vital contribution to building a peaceful, stable and democratic Iraq. We should take pride in what they have achieved to date.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend has a good knowledge of those matters. Although the Secretary-General has made such comments, my hon. Friend knows that there are also continuing discussions with allies to consider different formations that could be used in Afghanistan. Our allies are individually and collectively considering, for example, taking on provincial reconstruction teams and with which phase—1, 2 or 3—of the PRTs they engage. It is a matter of getting the right combination of countries to make an important impact in key areas as we progressively move into others. Again, I shall write to my hon. Friend to outline the current position. I hope that it will aid him to understand which countries have made a contribution, which are considering making a contribution, and the possible combination of such contributions. Clearly, we must acknowledge the sensitivity of some discussions, which can take place between Defence Ministers and, indeed, at prime ministerial level, to try to develop force generation. Those individual representatives have to report to their democratic forums. That means that sometimes we can divulge what is happening and at other times we cannot. However, I shall give my hon. Friend as much information as possible.
	In the Balkans, UK forces continue to assist with achieving self-sustaining peace and stability. Their efforts were brought into sharp relief last year when our people were instrumental in helping to restore calm after the March violence in Kosovo. In Bosnia, the UK took leadership of the EU mission, launched last December, which aims to move that country forward towards its Euro-Atlantic goals.
	Those operations have meant a major strategic evolution in the employment of our reserve forces. We are moving from a large but little used reserve to a smaller and more effective force. Since 1995, the reserves have consistently provided 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of manpower deployed in the Balkans. They have deployed to Afghanistan and, since January 2003, nearly 11,000 have been mobilised to support Operation Telic. Some 5,300 took part in the combat phase.
	Our reserves and their employers have responded magnificently and I thank them for that. Indeed, such have been reservists' contributions to operations that we intend to integrate them still further into our force structures. As already announced, that will involve some reorganisation and re-roling to achieve the optimum operational capability that we seek.
	In parallel and in recognition of reservists' contributions, we shall continue to explore ways in which to improve the support that we provide to them and their employers.

Adam Ingram: That is a genuine problem. We have undertaken the review because of the intensity of the effort and of the demand that we have made on the reserve and TA forces recently. We are therefore considering how better to organise them so that they are better integrated into work alongside the regular forces. The close integration of the reserve forces with the regular forces is nevertheless amazing. I witnessed that in Iraq and it was impossible to tell them apart. However, concern was expressed that the engagement of such a large number of reservists would mean some disjointedness and disconnection. That was not the case.
	We have learned valuable lessons from the deployment. There was also a worry that employers would say, "Hold on a moment, this is too big a commitment. You're taking away key personnel." Some reservists are unquestionably key players in their companies. We have to consider the whole matter, which relates to my earlier point that size does not deliver quality of itself. Getting optimum strength and the right structure, with the right resources, commitment and use is vital. That should be presented up front so that people know to what and for what they are joining up, and what the demand on them is likely to be. We want to give them a future horizon of utilisation. That may not be easy, or possible, but we want them to have confidence that they are being used in a balanced way. That work is under way, and valuable lessons can be learned from recent experiences.
	I would also like to recognise the contribution made by our civilian staff. Many are currently living and working alongside their military colleagues in operational theatres, providing advice on policy and on financial, legal, contractual and other issues. Indeed, several of our deployed civilians were recognised in last month's special honours list for Iraq. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the contributions that our civilians make, in the field and behind the scenes, to our success on operations.
	The excellent achievements of our regular and reserve forces are testimony to the degree of preparation provided by high-quality individual training and education throughout their careers.
	While physical and mental challenge is an integral and essential part of military training, the services are very conscious of the need to treat people as individuals, taking full account of varying abilities, needs and aspirations. Even so, we have been criticised as the result of tragic incidents in some training establishments. We have taken this criticism seriously and have made—and will continue to make—strenuous efforts to correct shortcomings and put in place robust systems to ensure that best practice is recognized and spread, that the highest standards are maintained, and that our training process is open to professional scrutiny.
	As the House will be aware, the adult learning inspectorate is currently undertaking a detailed survey as to the manner in which the MOD discharges its duty of care to young people in training. This important work, which sits alongside the current inquiry by the Defence Select Committee, will report before Easter, and it is my intention to bring their findings, and our response, to the House at the earliest opportunity.
	The MOD is one of the largest single providers of training and education in the UK. The lifelong learning process maximises individual potential through professional and personal development, and requires the active participation of both the organisation and the individual, supported by best-practice quality assurance systems. It captures education, academic and vocational learning activity, delivered through career and beyond. It includes, but is not limited to, modern apprenticeships, national vocational qualifications and higher education, including post-graduate training.
	A fundamental premise is that, where possible, relevant defence training will be accredited towards civilian qualifications. Qualification, knowledge and experience gained through lifelong learning benefit both the Department and the individual. We also ensure that our people have access to the best available medical care at home, on exercise and on operations.
	At home, our regional rehabilitation units have greatly reduced waiting lists and inappropriate referrals to secondary care for musculoskeletal injuries. The MOD is a leader in this type of initiative. In mental health, we have pursued a modern, community-based care approach. We have established, with King's College London, a mental health unit to keep abreast of the latest thinking. The Royal Centre for Defence Medicine is also a key element in our modernisation and the nucleus of a centre of military medical excellence in the midlands.
	We have a successful partnership with the Department of Health and we work hard to ensure that our two Departments and the NHS work together effectively. Initiatives include the possible joint procurement of drugs, and we have already delivered improvements in reception arrangements for military casualties from overseas. On operations, and particularly recently in Iraq, regular and reserve personnel in the Defence Medical Services have played a vital role and provided high standards of clinical care in difficult circumstances.
	I am sure that hon. Members will join with me in acknowledging the debt that we owe to those who have been killed or injured in operations or other circumstances, and in expressing our sympathy for the price paid by them, their partners and their families.
	We continue to support those families to minimise any further distress. For example, we have reviewed our policies regarding the provision of living accommodation to bereaved spouses and their children. We will ensure that they have somewhere to live close to their families while they come to terms with their loss, and we aim to react quickly, sensitively and effectively to accommodate injured personnel in modified housing where there is a need.
	We have also reviewed our boards of inquiry process to ensure that they are instigated more quickly—within 48 hours—and that Ministers are kept informed of progress. In addition, we have taken action to establish a single point of contact for next of kin, to ensure that they are briefed clearly, comprehensively and regularly so that they understand the stages in the process.We continue to keep these and associated policies under regular review, to ensure that bereaved families and injured personnel are provided with the support that they deserve.
	Looking to the future, we must ensure that we have the people policies in place to deliver people who are motivated, multi-skilled and adaptable. We will need recruits with greater potential and we must be able to offer rewarding careers to succeed in a highly competitive job market. Our terms and conditions of service must remain attractive overall, and at least comparable with the private sector.Currently, there is a shortfall of just over 3,000, or 1.6 per cent., against our trained requirement. That figure has been adjusted to reflect the force structure changes announced last July.
	We need between 18,000 and 19,000 personnel to join the trained strength of the three services each year, after completing basic training. Typically, that requires annual recruitment of up to 24,000 suitably qualified, fit and motivated young people of the right calibre. Success in recruitment is fundamental to the delivery of the people component of operational capability.To recruit and retain the required number and calibre of people, we must continue to provide attractive terms and conditions of service, and efficient, responsive and modern personnel support processes that meet the changing expectations of people, today and in the future.

Adam Ingram: Well, one never knows with the Liberal Democrats. However, they are probably on the right side in this instance.
	Our housing strategy aims to provide greater choice through a mixed economy of service, rented and privately owned housing. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blaby will tell us when he winds up whether he will reverse the actions taken to sell off service accommodation. Would he spend even more money clearing up the mess his party left behind? He shakes his head: it does not surprise me that he will not rise to the bait.
	We aim to provide high quality single and family service accommodation in the right locations to support mobility. We are also providing better advice and assistance to those who seek greater stability and a stake in the housing market.
	We value and support the well-being of the service community, because it is good employment practice and it contributes to operational capability. We have learned lessons from Operation Telic on the availability of welfare services and we are reviewing welfare and well-being issues more widely, including strategies for stress, care of vulnerable people, and the coverage of existing welfare provision.
	This April, we introduce new pension and compensation schemes which provide equal terms for officers and other ranks, and compensation better focused on the more seriously disabled. Where possible, the schemes include changes sought by service personnel and ex-service organisations. Notably, we have introduced a major increase to widows' benefits, provided pensions for unmarried partners, improved death-in-service benefit and extended the time limit to claim for compensation. The new arrangements should better meet the needs of the armed forces for the foreseeable future.

Keith Simpson: Unlike the Minister of State, I welcome the SNP intervention because of the sheer cheek of people who are the greatest political ambulance chasers in the United Kingdom. That statement should be examined and taken at face value.
	In a debate on defence in the other House, Lord Guthrie said:
	"It is important that our service men and women are properly trained. It should be of great concern that soldiers are now being deployed less well trained than they should be and less well trained than they have been in the past. The defence budget is so tight that training suffers. That affects all parts of the Army. Individual soldiers are less skilled than they were; training standards are too low; gunnery and field firing camps are cancelled; training between infantry, tanks, engineers and those parts of the Army that may have to co-operate and fight together rarely take place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2005; Vol.668, c. 564.]
	In the past when such quotations were used by Conservative Members or even, to be fair, by Labour Back Benchers, they were usually dismissed by Ministers on the grounds that they came from retired military dinosaurs in the other place. No one could refer to General Lord Guthrie as that. He is a man who served all Governments with great loyalty and professionalism and has always been constrained about what he says in public. He reflects publicly the deep concerns about training felt in many parts of the serving armed forces, who rightly do not put their reservations into the public domain.
	I have a question for the Under-Secretary about language training. As we prepare our armed forces to fight constantly overseas, developing capability in language training for our military personnel should have considerable priority. Currently, relatively small numbers of our armed forces attend courses at the Defence School of Languages: 363 in 2001–02; 271 in 2002–03; and 380 in 2003–04. Will the MOD consider putting greater emphasis on language training, and is it considering ways of encouraging personnel to undertake further such training, possibly through financial inducements or educational qualifications? Language skills should be given great priority.
	I want to turn to the overall situation in Iraq. Our armed forces personnel, as citizens as much as members of the armed forces, have a right to know in detail what Government policy will be over the next few months. With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs that the deadly insurgency is abating, the Government should be thinking of and beyond the election date. The imminent Iraqi elections have brought to the foreground calls for the early US withdrawal. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to George Bush Senior, predicted "an incipient civil war" and suggested that
	"the Iraqi elections, rather than being a promising turning point, have the potential for deepening the conflict."
	Does the Minister agree with the US Secretary of State designate, Condoleezza Rice, who acknowledged that problems of absenteeism and desertion among Iraqi forces are endemic? Is her assessment that there are 120,000 trained Iraqi troops more realistic than the suggestion of Senator Biden, who claimed after his recent visit to Iraq that the number was closer to 4,000? What is the British Army's assessment, in its area of southern Iraq, of the number of insurgents and the number of trained Iraqi security forces who are available and effective?
	We know that the Netherlands will pull out its troops on 15 March, along with the Portuguese contingent, sticking to a decision made in June. What plans are there for increasing the number of other coalition troops in Iraq? Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten the House as to whether other countries have been approached and whether there are any positive signs. What are the MOD's plans for additional deployment of British troops to and beyond Multi-National Division (South-East)? Can the Minister shed any light on the report in The Daily Telegraph today that Britain is urging America to announce a timetable for withdrawing coalition troops from Iraq over the next 18 months?

Keith Simpson: The hon. Gentleman should know that any professional organisation always requires more, but to my mind and to those who have nothing to do with politics, to have provoked General Lord Guthrie of all people—he is very considered and has worked very closely with the Prime Minister and has been careful not to appear parti pris—into saying such things shows that the matter is one of considerable concern and worry.
	Let me turn briefly to Army restructuring, regimental cuts and the reorganisation of the infantry, about which we have had many debates and many statements, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concerns, as has the Defence Committee. It is extraordinary that, when we sadly have a stalemate in Northern Ireland, when Iraq may need reinforcing, when there could be other problems in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we are actually reducing the number of infantry battalions—the very people whom the Army and the other services recognise that we need on current and future operations.
	The ending of the arms plot has been broadly welcomed—few people in the armed forces or outside would say that its continuation is necessary—but the kind of regimental cuts that Ministers came up with was not such a purist package as they made out. A number of options of one kind or another were on offer. The Minister rightly said that, from a purist, academic, or indeed a civil service point of view, there could be a good argument for reducing further the number of Scottish infantry battalions. Quite rightly, he said that a footprint of one kind or another must be borne in mind.
	To any outsider and certainly to those in the Army, the absurdities of the infantry reorganisation, in which the Scottish regiments managed to get their names up front and the English regiments behind, appears to be the most amazing piece of military theology and tautology. I see the Minister smiling. The only point that I would make is that there was a template that the MOD could have used. One part of the infantry that it was decided not to touch were the Guards infantry regiments. On the MOD director of infantry's briefing paper it said that they were not touched because they have a ceremonial and national profile.
	I would not disagree with that view, but the Guards infantry regiments represent the model that could have been used. They are effectively a larger regiment—a Guards regiment—and they retain in that regiment individual infantry regiments, with their history, battle honours, badges, recruitment and so on. They operate effectively, and in respect of arms plotting, they are able to post and cross-post between them. They are a national institution: the Grenadiers, the Coldstream, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh. I should be fascinated to know why that model was not used—it seems a blinding glimpse of the obvious. That question will not go away, and I tell all hon. Members that I suspect that the reduction in infantry battalions may have to continue, as much as anything else, not just because of financial pressure but because of the pressure of reconfiguring the Army at large.
	Not only has the Army been affected. The other two services at times rightly resent the fact that so much emphasis is placed on the Army. RAF trained strength will be reduced from the current figure of 48,500 to approximately 41,000 by April 2008. There may be a major reduction of RAF air bases and facilities throughout the country as part of that configuration. The process will be painful and will raise legitimate questions about the levels sufficient for the RAF to carry out its functions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will touch on the Royal Navy. There will be a reduction in the strength of not only its manpower but its platforms. As Admiral Lord Boyce has pointed out on numerous occasions, today we can have only one naval platform in one part of the world at any one time. There is incredibly limited flexibility, and if some of the cuts go ahead, operational limitations will be imposed on the Royal Navy, and its ability to assist in disaster relief will also be affected.
	Has the average interval of 24 months between tours for the Army been achieved? The Minister rightly highlighted people policies and welfare, and I know that he and his predecessors have put a lot of time and effort into that. I am grateful for his comments about the treatment of our wounded and injured military personnel on operations, because rather lurid comments have been made in the press. I would not infer in any way that either he or his colleagues are insensitive to the situation.
	I have some specific factual questions. How many personnel are currently receiving medical attention in the UK? Is there a breakdown between those suffering from physical injuries and stress-related injuries—I welcomed the Minister's comments about the work being done at King's college, London? How many of the servicemen who have been physically or mentally wounded in the past few years have been able to take up their former military careers? How many have been discharged, and what measures have been taken to compensate them financially and enable them to seek civilian employment? The Minister rightly touched on the problems that the Government, and indeed previous Governments, have faced regarding homeless ex-servicemen, which is often highlighted before the holiday season. Does he have any statistics showing many ex-servicemen are homeless today compared with a year ago, and is there a trend?
	During our consideration of the Bill that became the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) ably led for the official Opposition, the Ministry of Defence refused to address the inability of most members of the armed forces to earn a full career pension. Although we welcome benefits of the new scheme, such as the increase to the death in service benefit, it should be noted that the early departure scheme means that those who leave mid-career will be materially worse off than they would have been under the existing scheme. Such important manning and retention tools act as a pull through for members of our armed forces who would ordinarily have left earlier.
	Owing to the heightened risks of military service and the requirement for those serving to have high levels of physical fitness, the compensation arrangements under the war pensions scheme have always been generous. The standard of reasonable doubt, which has traditionally been applied in the absence of a time limit on claiming, reflected the exceptional nature of military service and led to the awarding of many claims that would have been unlikely under comparable public service schemes.
	Figures provided by the British Legion on claims made in 2002–03 suggest, however, that 60 per cent. of claims would fail under the new criteria following the introduction of the balance of probabilities and the five-year time limit. On Third Reading, the Under-Secretary confirmed that the change to the new scheme would result in a saving of £300 million over 10 years. What else can that money be except that which would otherwise have gone to those injured in the line of duty? Does that affect the Government's concept of a duty of care?

Colin Breed: I welcome this timely debate, not because it comes in a week when some of our armed forces are unfortunately in the media spotlight, but because it gives us an opportunity to remember and to pay tribute to those personnel serving still in Iraq, and to recognise the magnificent support that our armed forces provided in response to the devastating tsunami on Boxing day. A tremendous amount of work has been done and it reflects the huge variety of tasks that we ask our armed forces to undertake at a moment's notice.

Ivor Caplin: The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the tsunami, but we should also consider matters closer to home and reflect on the work undertaken by the armed forces in particular in Carlisle and in Boscastle, which is of course in his own county. That shows the considerable contribution that our armed forces can make in dealing with crises at home arising from natural disasters.

Colin Breed: Quite so, and the Minister will know how important it was that the helicopters used in Boscastle were very close to hand. I hope that he will reflect on the suggestion that they might not be there in the immediate future and think carefully before taking a decision.
	We have heard this afternoon about our armed forces' various commitments and we have also heard that, unfortunately, there will be redundancies. All three of our armed forces will be subject to cuts and it is necessary for us to question the balance that is being struck between manpower and technology. Achieving the right balance is a difficult thing, as I have always accepted. It is a perennial problem for any Government. However, we have to weigh the demands of operating at the high end of the war-fighting spectrum against the equally demanding humanitarian and stability-related tasks that we are asked to carry out around the world. We recognise that technology is expensive, but manpower is invaluable. It is widely known that our troops on the ground are greatly admired for their flexibility, training and professionalism, which they can display in a variety of circumstances. We never underestimate their value, but we should also never overstretch their capabilities.
	It is tempting to believe that fewer fighting troops are needed when technological advances are made in weapons and communication equipment, but it is clear from the events of the past few months that technology alone does not win battles. It therefore seems astonishing, as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, that even though our troops are still required in a variety of situations—be it Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Balkans—we are seriously contemplating reducing the Army's size. In particular, a reduction is being considered in the number of those infantrymen who are a crucial component for many such operations.
	I was surprised to read that, at a time when we are cutting our manpower despite our considerable commitments, it appears that the United States army is likely to increase its forces by another 20,000 or 30,000, despite its already huge numbers. We have indicated that we support the ending of the arms plot, which has been welcomed across the House, but we do not see why that should necessarily lead to a reduction in numbers. Cutting personnel numbers is a dangerous game, especially in the current climate, as there seems little likelihood of any major reduction in our commitments throughout the world, at least in the immediate future.
	Recruitment and retention of our armed forces personnel are therefore even more crucial, as the Minister said in his opening speech. We must ensure that we have a continual recruitment process and that the forces have a promotional structure to retain our best servicemen and women. I was particularly pleased to hear of the continuation of the upgrading of family housing, which is crucial to retention. I shall listen with interest, however, to hear why there has been some slippage in that programme, which was welcomed by everyone when it was announced. I hope that the slippage is not too great.
	As for reserve forces, reservists called up to serve in Iraq are said to be a little more unwilling to go again. At the moment, only a small fraction of trained reservists are immediately available. Clearly, some are untrained, some are unfit, and others are already stationed out in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The considerable pressure on our reservists continues. Will the Minister comment on what progress has been made in recruiting and retaining reservists?
	The ability to deploy and move around sufficient numbers of personnel who are suitably trained and appropriately equipped is vital, but the resources available and manpower levels in the Army are becoming dangerously low. The Minister will remember that the MOD's internal survey last year revealed that two thirds of those questioned were spending their money on extra equipment because they did not have enough confidence in that which was issued by the MOD, and nearly half our soldiers in Iraq had no confidence in their fighting kit. That same survey revealed that 39 per cent. of soldiers do not feel valued by the Army and that 35 per cent. felt that morale was very low. When asked whether the MOD looked after its personnel, only 3 per cent. of respondents agreed strongly, and 32 per cent. somewhat agreed, leaving a rather damning 62 per cent. who either did not know or did not believe that the MOD looked after its staff. Those figures are worrying. I hope that the Minister will provide some evidence of efforts made by the MOD to try to address some of the matters raised as a consequence of that. We need to address what our troops say in such surveys, as they are not just carried out for statistical reasons and I hope that there will be some evidence that the MOD has addressed some of the issues that underlie those views.
	We must ensure that our forces have the best and most effective equipment. The alarming figures from the survey suggest that they do not. The amount spent on basic kit and equipment, as a proportion of total expenditure, cannot be large. The situation must be remedied so that no member of our armed forces feels compelled to purchase additional kit with their wages in order to feel more confident in any dangerous situation to which we send them. They are protecting us, so surely we must ensure that we protect them.
	Training is causing some concern. We are witnessing signs of overstretch and it appears that some soldiers are being deployed who are less well trained than used to be, and perhaps should be, the case. I want to praise HMS Raleigh, which happens to be in my constituency and of which I and the community in South-East Cornwall are proud. It has undertaken some incredibly good training work, over many years, and it is an absolute joy to see many young men and women going into that training establishment and coming out as confident and effective young men and women going into the Navy. Training establishments such as HMS Raleigh are vital to our personnel and defence. Whatever budget calculations take place, our training establishments must be protected to ensure that they get exactly the right resources, so that training standards are not affected and we do not see any failures and incidents in training organisations such as those at Deepcut.
	In our last debate on this subject, the Minister offered several Members the opportunity to visit a number of establishments. I took up that offer and was pleased to go. I do not know whether we were allocated a Chinook with a window missing, which allowed us to endure previously unknown temperatures, in order to demonstrate that the cuts were hitting. The visits to establishments were extremely worthwhile and we all came away much more impressed in the sense that there was a more proactive approach to recruits. The training officers, voluntary services and chaplaincies were all working effectively together to address some of our underlying concerns. I for one felt that that day was well spent and I want the Minister to recognise that those of us who made that visit felt that it was a worthwhile exercise.
	It was interesting to read through the defence debate in the other place earlier this week, which was clearly attended by a considerable number of senior retired gentleman—five former chiefs of staff, I think. Although we might feel that they do not say now, when they are retired, what they might have said previously, if we reflect on that debate, I hope that the Minister will accept that they have a great wealth of experience from which they were trying to make constructive points.
	This week figures—to which the Minister referred in his opening statement—were revealed on the high number of soldiers who have been wounded and who are now hospitalised. I hope that the sort of detailed analysis that was offered earlier, and which the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk called for, becomes available. Some categorisation is important and I recognise that the hundreds mentioned could cover a wide spectrum of injury. It would be helpful if the MOD could provide some analysis of the figures. I hope, and I am sure that the MOD and Ministers will recognise, that those troops who have been brought back because of casualties demand our attention. I am sure that they will get that and hope that they will receive regular visits.
	Perhaps more worryingly, the same newspaper report, although I agree that we should not always accept what we read in the newspapers, seemed to suggest that those who had been wounded, and their relatives, should not talk to the media, and should be careful of what they were saying and to whom they said it. That sends a worrying sensation through us and our constituents. We owe a significant amount to these men and women, and we should not deny them the opportunity to speak to Ministers and to their constituency MPs, if they wish to visit.
	Finally, I am sure that the issue of voting is uppermost in people's minds. It is ironic, when we send our troops to places such as Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq to help promote democracy, that they should effectively be disfranchised. The number of registered service personnel voters has dropped dramatically since 2000, when there was a change from a single lifetime registration to a requirement to register every year. I am not certain why the system changed, so perhaps the Minister can explain. In some areas, only 10 per cent. of servicemen and women have registered, which is worrying. We have heard that they should understand what Government policies are and so on, but being able to vote is more important. I hope that the Government will ensure that our armed forces personnel do not lose their right to vote and will provide every opportunity to promote registration.

John Smith: Bearing in mind the earlier ruling by Mr. Deputy Speaker on speeches and the number of people who wish to speak, I will confine myself to one or two personnel issues.
	I welcome our debate because it gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work that our servicemen and women do throughout the world. Hon. Members who have the privilege of serving on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly regularly see examples of such work. We see our servicemen and women doing a tremendous job, often in grave circumstances. Whatever is taking place elsewhere today, it should not cast a shadow on the record of our service personnel. As an ex-serviceman myself, I am concerned about the effects of being put under the microscope by the media and of the 24/7 coverage. There is a certain naivety and a lack of realism in attitudes towards military conflict. Warfare is a brutal, cruel and bloody business, and anyone who thinks otherwise makes a grave mistake. My view is that mistakes take place in those difficult environments—there but for the grace of God go I. It may not be popular to say so—unfortunately, however, it is true—but in my limited military experience I saw some terrible things that make current activities pale almost into insignificance. We live in a democracy and members of our military forces who mistakes will face justice and be made accountable if necessary.
	The Government's record on personnel matters is particularly good, and the policies introduced since the strategic defence review are a credit to them. We have not implemented all those policies by any means and we will probably have to review a great many, but the Government's intentions are good as they are trying to change personnel policies in response to the dramatic change in the military's role since the end of the cold war. There has been an attempt to train, recruit and organise personnel to meet threats and challenges outside this country but there have also been dramatic internal changes. Earlier, we had an exchange about recruitment and retention in the armed forces. I remind Members that being able to recruit and retain servicemen and women when there is almost full employment is a hundred times more difficult than trying to do so when there are 3 million to 5 million unemployed, as was the case not very long ago. That is a major consideration. If we do not offer attractive terms and conditions, as well as support for service personnel and, in particular, their families, we will find it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain the best people to serve in our armed forces.
	I therefore welcome the personnel policy that we have introduced and warmly welcome, as do most hon. Members, the abolition of the arms plot. In future, larger units will be located in an area for a much longer period, which will improve training, expertise and continuity. When I was in the forces a long time ago, my wife did not work. Now, however, practically every service wife, husband or partner wants to work, so we need an environment that allows them to pursue a career. Their children should all be able go to the same school. I have a large military base in my constituency, so I am aware of the problems, especially the educational problems, that affect families who move on every two years—for example, their children have to move to a different school. I am glad that those issues have been addressed.
	I am also glad that we are rebalancing our forces and I welcome the restructuring that will allow us to meet the challenges that we face. I think that all in the House, if they are honest with themselves and assess what we need to do with the resources that we have, will recognise that restructuring the infantry regiments is inevitable. What is the point of having 40 infantry battalions if they cannot be deployed to carry out the tasks that we now face, rather than those that we faced 15 or 20 years ago during the cold war? It is much better to have 36 battalions that can be deployed at very short notice.

John Smith: Both those interventions are right, but we must be careful or we will lose the very argument that we are trying to put. The regiments that have been mentioned have been amalgamated in the past, which proves that tradition and loyalty can be maintained. Nevertheless, we must get the message across about the Welsh regiment. The Prime Minister referred to the matter yesterday in Prime Minister's questions, and I hope that the Ministry will have another look at it.
	In the time that remains to me, I want to focus on one very important personnel issue that relates not to the Army, but to the Royal Air Force. It is crucial that we get our personnel policies right. We must not only enable our forces to do the job that they were recruited for, but give them appropriate resources. The changes that are now taking place present us with a big challenge, which is why it makes no sense whatever that we have decided to give a role to the Royal Air Force that has no military relevance. Following an announcement on 16 September last year, which was confirmed on 16 December, Royal Air Force personnel will now be asked by the Ministry of Defence to undertake depth support of our front-line offensive fighter jets at RAF bases in central and eastern England—something that they have not done for some years and that involves carrying out a function that they do not have the capability to carry out.
	Depth support for Tornadoes and Harriers does not exist anywhere in Europe other than where such work has been done for the past 50 years, obviously with other front-line aircraft. It has been done by military personnel—including RAF personnel in the past—as well as civilians at RAF St. Athan. The reason why the RAF has not done that work for some years is that there is no military requirement for it to do so. There used to be such a requirement, but the Government have reached a conclusion that is somewhat bizarre and runs counter to the whole argument about rebalancing forces and outsourcing as much support for our front-line forces as we can to allow our military to get on with the job that we pay them to do and that they do best—fighting wars and preparing to fight wars. We now have the absurd decision by the Government to ask service personnel to do factory maintenance—deep maintenance—on those jets.
	We are reducing the number of our deployable offensive jets to 64 ready at any one time. The support facilities must be available to ensure that those aircraft are repaired, maintained and overhauled correctly, as they have been for many generations in south Wales, at St. Athan in my constituency. The Government have decided to renationalise that function within the Ministry of Defence and to ask RAF personnel to carry it out. That is a dangerous move, which threatens front-line capability and is demoralising for the RAF.
	I have a letter from a senior NCO stating that that is an appalling decision and recommending that one of the Ministers go to RAF Cottesmore, to where the Harrier has recently been moved to be repaired in that way, and speak to some of the NCOs in the crew room—off the record, of course, and away from their commanding officers—and ask them what they think about doing such irrelevant work in the 21st century. There was a case during the cold war for our military personnel to undertake such factory maintenance, but since "Options for Change", aspects of which we picked up as a Government under the strategic defence review, all non-essential military work has been taken away from service personnel and given to the private sector or, as in the case of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, outsourced to a trading agency which is made up entirely of civilians who operate in an exclusively commercial environment and who have done a fantastic job for the past five years.
	Having built an £80 million military hangar that will open in three weeks—the size of six football pitches, it is the largest and most advanced military hangar of its type in the world—instead of repairing the prime of our front-line jets in that wonderful facility, the Government are to transfer the work to remote air bases in the east of England. When I say remote, I mean remote. I am old enough to have been stationed at one of them, RAF Marham—a delightful posting, as I recall it, nicknamed when I was there "the el-Adem with grass". There are probably not many hon. Members who can remember the RAF base in el-Adem, which happened to be in the middle of the Libyan desert. We are seriously proposing that the entire front-line fleet of the Royal Air Force is repaired in the middle of nowhere, with all due respect and apologies to any hon. Member who represents that area. I had a lovely time at RAF Marham, and they were lovely people, but it is not the place to repair the RAF front-line fleet.
	I can tell my dear friend the Minister that that demoralises military personnel. They know more than most that what they are being asked to do is nonsense. The work that is to be done at RAF Marham was done by RAF personnel at St. Athan five years ago—4,500 military personnel were doing the work that 1,500 civilians do now. Anybody who has had service experience knows that there is no great mystery about that. Military personnel join the forces because they want to play a part in defending our country. They want to work together as a team, doing something relevant in that defence. They are the first to spot it when they are asked to do something that is not directly relevant to that role. They know damn well that what they are being asked to do in respect of maintaining the front-line fleet is wrong.
	I make a prediction: the RAF will be unable to meet its in-service date for the Harrier after giving that work to the RAF. The front-line capability of our Royal Air Force is placed at risk by such work being given to the RAF. The RAF will do it, and do it to a very high standard—there is no such thing as not getting the job done, but it is not noted for doing it within fixed budgets and efficiently. If they had wanted to be aircraft engineers in big factories, they would not have joined the Royal Air Force.
	It is no good my coming back in five years' time and saying, "I told you so." I plead with the Government to look at this issue again. I ask them to give this work to the people who can do it—either the civilians who currently do it or others—and for goodness' sake do not waste vital pounds of our defence budget on unnecessary work.

Peter Viggers: I hope that the Government listen to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who speaks with passion and has right on his side. It goes against the stream of Government decisions to bring work back from a specially designed, skilled organisation and allocate it to service personnel who are more expensive to maintain. I really think that the Government are going down the wrong route on this issue, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to campaign on it.
	It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister, but I regret the absence of the Secretary of State. One might say, "The House is rather thin, and why should the Secretary of State spend his time in a thin House?" But what about cause and effect? If Cabinet Ministers were shown to be taking account of debate in this House, where many of the speeches are made by people with very specialised skills and knowledge, the House might fill up and the Government might learn something.
	At their best, the armed forces are absolutely outstanding. Right at the top, they are commanded by people who have usually been to the Royal College of Defence Studies to take a one-year course that gives them a rounding and a generalisation that armed forces chiefs in many other countries do not have. The RCDS is outstanding and contributes very much to the exceptional and rounded skills of our leading generals, admirals and air marshals. Likewise, Shrivenham staff college is exceptional in providing ranks at the level of major across the three services with broadening experience. I will never forget the last day of the Shrivenham experience—it was devoted to the realities of war, and people with experiences ranging from the D-day landings to being shot down over Iraq came to speak about the reality of being involved in war.
	The Army, Navy and Air Force provide the largest single amount of training for 16 to 20-year-olds in this country. As a member of the Defence Committee, I visited several training establishments when we carried out our study on the duty of care to those who are undertaking training. We found that they, too, are responsible for producing very well-rounded people. It is a remarkable fact that these young men and women, some of whom have pretty rough edges, can be facing fire after as little as eight months. The armed forces have an exceptional ability to train people and to bring them forward. A corporal commanding a patrol will take decisions with very little time and very little experience other than the training that he has been given. The ability of those young people to accept responsibility is remarkable. It is amazing that they can be given responsibility for using sophisticated and expensive equipment, including weapons that can kill. The armed forces do an exceptional job from top to bottom.
	There have been various discussions about overstretch—a word that tends to be used a great deal. The 1999 defence White Paper referred to the need to retain the edge of skills and
	"to solve the deep-seated problem of overstretch".
	Even in 1999, the Government were looking forward to solving that problem. Overstretch means that more tasks are being given to armed forces personnel than they can do well and safely on a resilient, continuous basis. The Chief of the Defence Staff recently told the Defence Committee that the armed forces could not undertake another operation the size of Telic—the operation in Iraq—until the end of this decade. He said that we will not
	"be able to get to large scale until . . . 2008 or 2009".
	Overstretch means that there will be more deployments and that individuals will have less time between deployments, more time overseas, more time away from their families, less training and less preparation. That can cause problems.
	I want to discuss three aspects of overstretch. First, the reserves are now more committed than ever before to being involved with the regular armed forces. Their role in providing infilling for the regular forces is very important, but there is one role that they do not currently have. They do not have the ability to reconstitute a much larger Army should there be a need to expand the Army rapidly. That has always been the role of the Territorial Army: to provide a framework around which it is possible to reconstitute a much larger armed force. During the last war, units with the framework of a Territorial Army unit were much more effective than units created from scratch. Asymmetrical warfare may lead to threats that we cannot currently anticipate. What might the unexpected be? I do not know, of course, because it is unexpected, but I think it is an unwise Government who fail to maintain the ability to reconstitute much larger armed forces.
	The second aspect of overstretch that I want to discuss is the treatment of prisoners of war. I am extremely conscious of Mr. Speaker's ruling and nothing that I say should be interpreted as a comment on current events, but current events did cause me to look into the manner in which prisoners of war should be treated and the way in which the rules came about. It is quite a touching story.
	In 1841, a Swiss who had been on a battle site went back to Geneva, and with four colleagues from Geneva created, in 1848, what became the International Committee of the Red Cross and the first four Geneva conventions. The first is the convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field. The second is the convention for the amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea. The third relates to the treatment of prisoners of war, and the fourth is relative to the protection of civilian persons in times of sar. It is laid down clearly that people who comply with the conventions are
	"especially required to ensure that the implications"
	of the Geneva conventions
	"are clearly understood by members of their Armed Forces and by the civilian population. In order to assist this process"
	the conventions
	"place an obligation on signatories to disseminate the text of the Conventions to appropriate military and civilian personnel."
	My reading on this subject included a Ministry of Defence publication dated March 2001. I read about commanders' responsibilities. Commanders in military campaigns are instructed that prisoner-of-war issues should be taken fully into account. Paragraph 202 states
	"In recent military campaigns PW issues were not taken fully into account as a planning factor. This resulted in UK forces being faced with the problem of handling very large numbers of PW for whom little provision had been made in terms of accommodation, food or clothing. Fortunately, in recent operations the problems of dealing with such a large number of PW coincided with the collapse of the opposing forces and the end of hostilities. Had this not been the case and had operations continued, the problems posed by the presence of large numbers of PW and the requirement to administer them would possibly have had a profound influence on the conduct of operations."
	It is clear from my reading that there is a heavy obligation on all those planning any military operation to take advanced notice of the manner in which prisoners of war are to be handled. There are strict rules about the escorting of prisoners of war and the work that they are allowed to undertake. Paragraph 3G9 of the MOD publication states:
	"PW working conditions are to be guided, as far as is possible within the constraints of operations, by the provisions of the UK Health and Safety at Work legislation. Conditions must not be of a lesser standard than those enjoyed by members of the UK forces or of UK civilians engaged on similar work."
	I was not aware, until I studied these regulations, of the extent to which it is an obligation on every power to plan for prisoners of war and to take all proper provision to ensure that they are looked after in a decent manner.
	My third point on overstretch relates to Defence Medical Services. This is another area of undoubted weakness. The current military plan is that the Army should be capable of producing 14 field hospitals—three from the regulars and 11 from reserves. In fact, the regulars are capable of producing one and a half field hospitals, while the reserves could produce two and a half, making a total of four. That shortfall is extremely serious and it is merciful that we have been spared from having extensive casualties in recent military operations.
	A recent press report, the accuracy of which I do not know, suggested that 790 casualties had come back from Iraq. They would have to be spread among the civilian hospitals around the country. The Government decided in December 1998 to close the remaining military hospital, the Royal military hospital Haslar, which is in my constituency. I am delighted to say that it is still in service and I hope that the Government will rethink their plans. The Government's strategy was to move to a new centre of defence medicine in Birmingham, based at Selly Oak hospital, at a cost of £200 million. However, they ran out of money and cancelled the £200 million that was intended to go to Selly Oak. As a result, the new centre of defence medicine is based loosely around Birmingham university hospital, but it does not have its own centre for the purposes of ethos and morale. It does not have its own mess arrangements or sporting facilities, for example.
	While the Government take great pride in the fact that they are recruiting quite well into Defence Medical Services at the moment, the level of retention is extremely bad—there is very little to keep someone at consultant level in the armed forces. The result is that Defence Medical Services will recruit people from school and university but will find it very difficult to retain them at consultant level. That will lead to an even greater loss of defence medical personnel than we are experiencing at present.
	The Under-Secretary knows, because he and I have debated this many times, that there is already a critical shortfall in the key faculties of anaesthetics, general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and general medicine. That will get worse unless the Government rethink their proposals. We in south Hampshire continue to believe that the right way ahead would be to realise that Selly Oak is not working and instead to work for increased facilities where the armed forces tend to be based, which is in the south Hampshire area. This work could certainly be done in hospitals around Southampton and Portsmouth.
	My concern about the Government's personnel policy in the armed forces is that they are trying to deal with existing issues, but that there is very little in reserve to deal with the unexpected. We ask a great deal of our armed forces and we should treat them accordingly. Our treatment in terms of pay, pensions and conditions is not as good as that of many of our allies, including the Germans. We should take account of that and do rather better for our armed forces.

John Greenway: Well, we think that it will. The colonel of the Green Howards has made clear the utter determination of the three regiments to make the new Yorkshire Regiment a great success and to be the very best in the British Army. The Under-Secretary knows that that is the case. One would expect nothing less from a regiment that has faithfully served the Crown since 1688.
	I want to use this debate to explain a dimension to the argument that is often overlooked by people outside Yorkshire. It is a big county, more than 100 miles from north to south and almost 100 miles from west to east. In many respects, it is three if not four counties in one, with people still having strong links to and feelings for the old ridings. The Green Howards was a nickname adopted in 1744 to avoid confusion with another regiment commanded by a Colonel Howard; the soldiers had green facings on their uniforms and their colonel was the Hon. Charles Howard, the second son of the third Earl of Carlisle, who built Castle Howard in north Yorkshire. The regiment has been associated with the north riding of Yorkshire since 1782 and is one of only two English infantry regiments never to have been amalgamated. Similarly, the Duke of Wellingtons have always been associated with west Yorkshire. Since 1875, we have had a Scandinavian link through the colonels-in-chief; the present colonel-in-chief is King Harald V of Norway. We do not want that link to be lost.
	At present, the three Yorkshire regiments have the brown beret in common. I hope that a new cap badge, fitting to the new regiment, will be one of grand design of which we can all be proud, and not based on the old Yorkshire Brigade cap badge of the 1960s. I can see no reason why at battalion level the belt buckle and rank slides of the three regiments should not be retained, nor even their mess dress, which, individually, could incorporate the new regimental insignia.
	The Army may say that is none of our business, but I hope that the openness and public involvement of the past six months will prevail and that the Army does not close ranks and shut us all out. Without public support, the Army will not achieve what it wants by establishing the new single regiment.
	Recruitment needs close public involvement to promote the right climate and attract the right calibre and numbers. Even in a recruitment area as small as that of the Green Howards, local contact is still necessary. The Army is not a major employer, but there are local links; for example, the Green Howards marched through Scarborough and Middlesbrough with fixed bayonets and colours flying, when they came back from Afghanistan last October.
	Communications are also important. When our forces are on operations, some of which are extremely dangerous, people back home see and hear every movement and event as it happens. The stress and strain can be far harder for the families and communities left behind than for those on operations. The Chief of the Defence Staff has made it clear that families should have high priority in the future Army structure. Being in a close-knit community is a great help, just as community spirit is for those on the ground. Public support for our individual regiments over the past few months, especially for those serving in Iraq, has been tremendous. I pay tribute to the Yorkshire Post for highlighting our concerns and for helping us with our campaign. None of us wants to lose the good will that has been established.
	I have told the Secretary of State in earlier debates that a Yorkshire regiment of three battalions and one Territorial Army battalion could be a real success. We must give the four battalions a chance and an edge and that will be greatly enhanced by allowing their individual identities to remain. That will give the Government everything that the future infantry structure requires and a regiment that the people of Yorkshire can continue to support and with which they can identify. The motto, "Once a Green Howard, always a Green Howard", is very much enshrined in the north riding community. I want it retained and taken forward.
	None of the three battalions in the Yorkshire regiment will ever see one another in future, because they will all be posted to different places, some of them in other parts of the world. That gives rise to a question that has been put earlier in the debate: why do we need to abolish the existing regimental structure? Even if one conceded—I do not—that the Government have a case for reducing the number of battalions by three, that does not mean that we should scrap all those regiments. Furthermore, we all now understand and appreciate the importance of scrapping the arms plot, but none of us can see why the ending of the arms plot should mean scrapping all those historic regiments—a central feature of the debate in the other place on Monday. However, that is what the Government have decided to do and, in Yorkshire, we will try to make a success of the new regiment.
	The Minister of State said earlier that the Government and the Army Board are listening to the arguments about identities. I hope that he, his colleagues and the Army Board will reflect on what many of us have said in the debate about the importance of the names and the way the regiments are structured, and the importance of ensuring that as much of their current identity as possible is retained for the future. I genuinely believe that that is an important ingredient in the Government's achieving what they want.

Mike Gapes: The Defence Committee—at least, most of it—is in Cyprus, and it is unfortunate that the debate clashes with that visit. It is not the first time that something like this has happened, and I am sure it will not be the last, but I hope that planners will look at such matters in the future to try to allow as many members of the Committee as possible to attend such debates.
	The Defence Committee is visiting our forces in the sovereign base areas on the island. It is part of our ongoing work as a Select Committee that we visit our forces. In the past year, we have visited Kosovo, Bosnia and Iraq, twice. We have also visited British forces in other parts of the world, and we will continue to do so. One of the things that I have learned during my two periods as a member of the Committee is the high quality and calibre of our people in the MOD and our armed forces. I shall not comment on the cases that are currently before the courts, but irrespective of whether the allegations are true, they are extremely damaging to everyone's reputation.
	The Defence Committee has three inquiries going on simultaneously, one of which is into the duty of care. That inquiry has taken us to the initial and other training establishments around the country and has involved various other visits. I went to Hendon police college while looking at comparator organisations. I have seen how young people are trained, how instructors do their work and how people learn not just the aspects of the military regime but how to become better citizens in the wider sense, so that they can get worthwhile employment in society when they leave our armed forces.
	When we see the work that the British Army is doing in southern Iraq, with the quick-fix projects and the enormous skills that are deployed, we realise that it is continuing to have an enormous, positive impact on Iraq. Full-time military personnel and Territorial Army people are assisting with water projects, construction, administration, banking and all kinds of things that the military should not really have to do, because regrettably no one else is around to do them, given the lack of trained people.
	I wish that our broadcasters in this country—particularly the BBC—would say something about what we are doing positively in Basra and elsewhere, instead of only basing journalists in Baghdad who take television footage of atrocities and incidents and then comment on them. It is dangerous for journalists—it is dangerous for other civilians—but we have stories tell about what is happening in the south of Iraq. Those stories are not getting out because the journalists are not there to report them. I make an exception for two journalists—one from the Financial Times, the other from The Times—whom I met during our visit to the police training college in December, but it is important that the media give a balanced view of what is happening in Iraq, particularly now in the run-up to the elections and directly afterwards.
	The Defence Committee in its ongoing inquiry into events in Iraq has asked a number of questions about investigations into allegations of misconduct. I will not comment on any specific case, as I have said. A memorandum that we were sent in September said:
	"The total number of Service police investigations involving allegations of abuse against Iraqi civilians is currently 131. These investigations cover a range of incidents including operational engagements, negligent discharges and road traffic accidents as well as the alleged physical abuse of detainees. A number of these investigations have concluded with no case to answer. Other investigations are in their early stages".
	It said that the number of personnel who had been reported for specific offences was 35 as of 31 August. Will the Under-Secretary tell us how many allegations have now been made and how many personnel have been reported for specific offences?
	The memorandum also told us that 55,000 servicemen and women had served in Iraq, and the Prime Minister told us yesterday that the figure is now 65,000. It is clear that a large proportion of our armed forces have gone through Iraq over the past year and a half, and I suspect that many more will go in the coming months as we continue to assist after the constituent assembly is elected and in preparation for the referendum on the new constitution later in the year and the elections for a Parliament, which are scheduled before the end of the year. However, we also need to get many more civilians into Iraq, so the Department for International Development should do far more to assist with the projects that our military have had to carry out over recent months. That could be done safely in the area in which the British military are based, because the situation there is not as it is in other parts of the country.
	The Committee's third inquiry is examining future capabilities. We recently took evidence from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Secretary of State, and we will take more evidence before we conclude our report. We will publish our three major reports in the next few months. I am sure that we will have them out just before the general election—whenever that is.
	As I said earlier, I have visited Kosovo and Bosnia, so I would like an update on what has happened following the transition of the control of forces in Bosnia from the NATO SFOR to the European Union EUFOR. Is it going well, and have we solved the problems caused by different national rules—the so-called national caveats? They prevented co-operation, because countries such as Germany had restrictions on the policing role of the armed forces, and caused other difficulties. Given that we are six weeks on from the transition, may we have an update on the situation?
	My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the situation last March when we had to intervene in Kosovo at short notice because of disgraceful violence and the fact that Albanians were burning out the homes of the Serb minority. Pressure and difficulty are increasing because the majority in Kosovo have expectations that their status will finally be resolved in 2005, but there is no easy resolution to the situation. It is reported that investigations are being held into many leading figures in the Kosovo Administration. The recently appointed Prime Minister of Kosovo, Mr. Ramush Haradinaj, has close links with some of those against whom allegations have been made and his brother has been arrested. If another upsurge of orchestrated activity occurs, I would like an assurance that the NATO forces and our own people will be ready for it and that a period of a few hours, or perhaps even longer, in which they do not intervene does not occur, which was the difficulty in March last year.
	I want to move on to my final remarks and shall try to finish in less than the maximum time, to allow Opposition Members to speak. On ethnic minority recruitment into our armed forces, the MOD has published a helpful document, "Race equality scheme 2002–2005 progress report 2004", which reveals that the number of ethnic minority personnel has increased in all three services. However, it admits that progress has been slower than expected and that the percentage goals have not been met in all respects.
	I ask the Government to redouble their efforts. My constituency contains large numbers of people from all kinds of ethnic minorities. In my work with the Select Committee, I have seen people from all over the world serving with British forces, which is partly due to recruitment from Commonwealth countries. I have come across Fijians, Samoans and people from other parts of the world, as well as pilots from New Zealand, in our armed forces. However, I hope that we can start to recruit British-black, British-Indian and British-Pakistani people, so that our forces more accurately reflect the diversity and nature of modern Britain.
	Finally, the excellent work by British forces, which we always expect, in the relief of people who have suffered from the tsunami has already been mentioned. My Sri Lankan-Tamil constituents want me to put it on record in this House that they greatly appreciate our efforts. They are a little bit concerned that some of the aid to Sri Lanka is not getting through to Tamil areas because of the history of internal conflict, and they want the British Government to do whatever they can to facilitate that process so that aid is distributed fairly.
	My Sri Lankan-Tamil constituents have nothing but praise for the help that has been given to places such as Batticaloa that were victims of the terrible disaster. We should place on record our thanks to all those involved, whether they are civilians, whether they work in Departments other than the MOD, whether they are on ships such as RFA Diligence and HMS Chatham or whether they are helicopter pilots, for whatever they have done to save lives and to help to make at least some lives better after the terrible tragedy.

John Wilkinson: The armed forces reflect the esteem of the people for their way of life and the commitment of a nation to the defence of its values and culture. Any Government who neglected the interests of the armed forces and those who serve in them would demonstrate a lack of care for the way of life that the people themselves hold dear.
	The subject is important, and it is sad that the Secretary of State could not be present, particularly because our armed forces have served with exceptional distinction in Iraq, where they have taken so many casualties. Soldiers have been killed and, as we have learned, wounded in very large numbers. As was said, we should also remember the sterling help given by our armed forces to the victims of the tsunami tragedy in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.
	I want to address two practical themes and a further, more strategic one. Apart from the exploits of the British Army in Iraq, there has also been some unfortunate publicity. In addition, particularly unfortunate publicity was given to the suicide last year of four recruits at the Royal Logistic Corps training centre at Deepcut barracks. One theme unites both these episodes: that the discipline of our armed forces must be absolutely fundamental. We do not emphasise sufficiently in our debates the need for our armed forces to retain the very highest standards of discipline. When things go wrong, it is not the soldiers, airmen or sailors who are so much to blame: it is the officers who should carry the can and demonstrate a sense of responsibility, care and concern for those in their command, and a sense of leadership.
	Officers will have those attributes only if they are properly trained, and training is the second of my practical themes. For officers, the training process these days has become too much of a sausage machine. Let us consider other armed forces of great distinction, such as those of the United States. The West Point army academy, the Colorado Springs air force academy, and Annapolis naval academy have four-year courses. Other armed forces of leading nations are not taking our path, which is to cut the length of training for officers in the early stages. That is a wrong-headed economy, which does not give the necessary basic training or the required sense of commitment, duty and above all discipline. Shortfalls in basic training and in the induction process have to be made up in the units themselves, which reduces their operational efficiency.
	It has been complained that the Territorial Army, which constitutes some 20 per cent. of the British Army in Iraq, has gone into theatre with inadequate weapons training. That is absolutely inexcusable, and it re-emphasises the point that there can be no shortcuts in training. Of course, the TA's performance in theatre has been admirable and everyone has rightly praised it, just as they have praised the performance of the Royal Naval Reserve and in particular of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force's 600 City of London Squadron. The squadron, which is celebrating its 80th anniversary, is based at RAF Northolt in my constituency. The reserves have an enormous part to play in the future of our armed forces, but they need adequate training and the support of the regular element. Over time, we should pay more attention to the reserves, and the Conservatives will. Indeed, such a policy is at the heart of one of our main proposals for the future of our defence.
	The strategic theme on which I want to touch is not the growing power of China. In that regard, I was interested to hear the observations of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), which exemplified one thing—that we live in a greatly changing world—but the disposition of our forces does not reflect the fact. It is an anachronism that the largest single element of our Army should be deployed in Germany. Of course, we have forces elsewhere, too. We have more or less 1,000 troops in Kosovo, some 1,000 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, approximately 1,000 in the Falklands and a further 1,000 in Gibraltar. There are 3,500 troops in Cyprus, some 1,000 in Brunei and just under 1,000 in Afghanistan. But do we need 21,250 in Germany, at bases that are left over from the cold war?
	The Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, of course, is dependent on the British, as we are the framework nation and provide 60 per cent. of the headquarters personnel. I wonder, however, about keeping an armoured division, with three armoured brigades based at cold war garrisons such as Hohne, Osnabrück, Münster, Paderborn, Gütersloh, Sennelager and Falingbostel—names that will be familiar to cold war warriors such as me. Does that reflect today's reality, now that the Warsaw pact is disbanded, and NATO has expanded to encompasses the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland? There is a buffer zone between western Europe and the east, and there is even a clear divergence of attitude between our German friends and us—the Germans sought to prevent Turkey from having Patriot missiles for its air defence before the Gulf war, and the Germans, French, Belgians and Luxembourgers had their own Defence Ministers meeting in the spring last year to try to pursue a slightly different strategy.
	We ought to try to evolve a new strategy to pay much more attention than we do to expeditionary warfare. We are moving in the right direction, and the various reviews have embraced that idea. In practical terms, however, a great deal more needs to be done. The Government have announced the provision of a new C-17 heavy air-lifter to take personnel to trouble spots overseas, but we have only four others, although the amphibious forces and the Royal Marines are the best of their kind in the world today, and I wholeheartedly applaud Her Majesty's Government attention to amphibious capability. Nevertheless, the British presence in Germany, which, I think, costs about £1.2 billion per year—perhaps the Minister will correct me on that—is an anachronism, and should be reviewed. There is no need to keep our forces stationed in Germany for them to participate in the ARRC.
	I was interested to note, too, that Her Majesty's Government, and certainly the Minister of State in his speech, made no mention of the European security and defence policy, and the commitment, to which we are signing up under the European constitution that the Government embrace, to be ready to participate in the deployment of an army corps up to 4,000 km from Brussels, and to keep it in theatre for up to a year. Those are big commitments of an expeditionary kind, and I do not yet see that our armed forces have been modified sufficiently in that direction. I find it perverse that the main instrument for projective power, the Royal Air Force, should be the one sustaining the biggest cuts in the review being imposed by Her Majesty's Government.
	We should spend our money more at home, deploying our forces from home bases, using instruments of power projection such as amphibious vessels and an enhanced air transport fleet. In that way, our armed forces would be better configured, particularly if they had larger reserves. I know that my party is working on many of those ideas, particularly in the field of deployment and reserves, but the stationing of such a large proportion of our Army in Germany, particularly western Germany, is questionable at the present time.

Annabelle Ewing: As the MP for Perth, where the Black Watch has its regimental headquarters, I know that my constituents would wish me to make several points on their behalf today. I am therefore very pleased to have been given the opportunity to do so.This is the first time since the Defence Secretary wielded his axe to scrap the entire Scottish regimental system, further to his announcement on 16 December last year, that the House has had the opportunity to debate the matter more fully. It is just a pity that the Government have not had the courage of their convictions and allowed a vote, because if we were allowed a vote on this shameful decision, it would be interesting to see which Labour Members would be prepared to stand up and be counted to save the Scottish regiments. I fear very few indeed, if any.
	That contrasts with the position of the Scottish Parliament, which had a vote on the same day that the Defence Secretary made his announcement. At present, the Scottish Parliament does not enjoy power and jurisdiction in this matter, but the House may be interested to learn that, none the less, it voted against the decision by the UK Government to scrap Scotland's regimental system, which was a rare defeat for the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive. Since the Defence Secretary made his announcement in December, I have been inundated with messages of support for my stance on the Black Watch, the Argylls and the other Scottish regiments from my constituents, people the length and breadth of Scotland and, indeed, people throughout the United Kingdom and further afield.
	That support was clearly in evidence at the "Save the Scottish Regiments" rally in Edinburgh on 18 December, when veterans, retired officers, the families of serving soldiers—the Minister of State rightly recognised that their interests are important—and members of affected communities marched proudly down Princes street. Serving soldiers even came along, but they could not wear their uniforms because they were expressly ordered not to do so. The people of Edinburgh lined the streets to support the campaign and applaud the Scottish soldiers. I was proud to march alongside them and to speak at the rally, along with my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). While speakers from all parties came to the rally, not one Scottish Labour MP bothered to turn up or to stand up and be counted. I suspect that that will not go unnoticed and will not be forgotten or forgiven as we approach the UK general election, which is widely predicted to be held in May.

Eric Joyce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not customary for a Member making speech at least to indicate to someone who asks them to give way that they will not do so?

Annabelle Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	On the timing of the Defence Secretary's announcement, not only were soldiers from the Black Watch returning home after their second tour of duty in Iraq and a controversial redeployment but they had sustained the loss of their comrades. They had also been required to take part in a publicity shoot with the Defence Secretary, who visited them when they were safely back in Basra—he did not quite make it to Camp Dogwood. It is no wonder that there is anger not just in the traditional recruiting heartlands of the Black Watch but the length and breadth of Scotland.
	People believe that the Black Watch, the Argylls and the other Scottish Regiments have been stabbed in the back. They do not accept that it is either sensible or logical to axe the Scottish regiments at a time of increasing international insecurity and military overstretch, about which we have heard much today. They rightly regard the Scottish regiments as the finest in the world, and the bravery, professionalism and commitment of our Scottish soldiers are second to none. It is cynical in the extreme, they believe, that the Government should, on the one hand, put a cap on recruitment—I think that we are supposed to call it a pause in light of what the Minister of State said in response to my intervention—while talking up recruitment difficulties, even though the Black Watch, to name but one regiment, exceeded its recruitment target. They consider the arms plot argument a red herring, because nobody has ever explained why scrapping the entire Scottish regimental system is necessary to phase out the arms plot.
	What is clear to people in my constituency and elsewhere is that this was a political decision, although the Government tried in an unseemly way to pass the buck to the Army. It is also clear to people in Scotland that the decision was Treasury-driven and that the impetus came from the Chancellor. That was recognised by no less than Colonel Tim Collins. In a BBC interview of November 2004, he said:
	"These reductions are about saving money for the Treasury. It is not about making the army better and it is not about fixing something that is broken."
	We have heard much from the Government about operational efficiency and the need to improve it, but the fact of the matter is that scrapping the entire Scottish regimental system will not improve operational efficiency.
	Our Scottish regiments are the envy of the world, for the esprit de corps that is engendered by loyalty to the regiment first and foremost is what puts Scottish soldiers in a class of their own. That was recognised even by this Government, who took the decision to redeploy 600-odd Black Watch soldiers to the US zone in Iraq because they were indispensable to the 130,000-strong US army. What my constituents still want to know is why the Black Watch is not therefore viewed as indispensable to the Government. Indeed, in recent weeks, we have seen the return of the Royal Highland Fusiliers to Iraq, with the Royal Scots held in reserve. That is another example of how indispensable our Scottish regiments are and how fit for purpose they are for doing the job that the Government have asked them to do.
	Key military experts have also expressed fears that about the impact on recruitment of these damaging policies. We need look back no further than the early 1990s, when the then Conservative Government launched their assault on the Scottish regiments with the amalgamation of the Gordons and the Queen's Own Highlanders, to see the devastating impact of such changes on recruitment for many years.
	We have heard much about the Government's claims that serving Scottish soldiers favour the scrapping of their regiments, but they were not asked about what they felt. The only poll conducted by the Ministry of Defence apparently did not even include that question. Instead, there was a Hobson's choice question about which kind of amalgamation they would prefer. Curiously, the results of that poll were not published by the MOD, as far as I am aware. Given that the soldiers have also been gagged to stop them speaking out, it is difficult to understand how the Government can state that they have evidence to show support among serving soldiers for the decision to scrap the regiments. I have received many letters from serving soldiers not only in the Black Watch, but in other regiments, and I can assure the Minister that none of them wishes to see their regiment scrapped.
	In conclusion, the decision taken by the Government to scrap Scotland's entire regimental system is not only wrong, but a betrayal of our brave soldiers. It will never be forgiven or forgotten by the people of Scotland. Even at this late hour, the Government could do a U-turn. They have done so on other issues, and they could give the regiments a reprieve. That view is supported by the Adjutant-General, no less, and by the current colonel of the Black Watch. I urge the Government to think again. If they do not do so, they will deserve all that they get at the ballot box when the people of Scotland have the opportunity to say what they think.

Mike Hancock: Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This shows that Ministers are extraordinarily guilty about the way in which they have let these people down. They are as responsible as any non-commissioned officer or senior officer in the Army in their duty of care to these young men and women and their families.
	The Geneva convention, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), does not cover many of the situations in which we now find ourselves. We do not know if a prisoner of war is a genuine combatant of the country with which one is at war, an insurgent, a common criminal, or a terrorist engaged in fighting not for a country but for an abstract issue that is not directly part of the war. That blurring of responsibilities makes it difficult for soldiers on the ground to decide who is covered by what. The prevailing situation should always be governed by how we would want and expect to be treated ourselves in a similar position. I hope that that is the message that goes out loud and clear.
	I urge the Ministry of Defence to reconsider some of the issues that it has so far identified as being at the top of its list—for example, the replacement for HMS Diligence, a ship that has served this nation well and offered a capability that will be lost when she goes out of commission in 2006. When that issue was raised by at least three hon. Members at a recent meeting of the Select Committee, the Secretary of State said, "We've moved on from replacing like with like, ship for ship." But this ship is a unique facility that is being got rid of with no way of replacing it. The Government should seriously consider the way in which it has operated over the past two years in making a significant contribution to the maritime aid and defence of the soldiers and civilians whom we want to assist.
	On the capability of the Royal Air Force, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) spoke with passion about his concerns for the work force at St. Athan. No satisfactory answer has been given to the question of why this is being done. What will happen to that multi-million pound facility? It is a similar situation to that of the military hospital in Haslar, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Gosport. The facilities were updated at the same time as the Government were considering closing it. The same thing has happened at St. Athan.
	As always in these debates, Members have to balance what they say in defending the armed forces and the great work that they do and in spelling out the problems as we see them. Ministers might feel that some criticisms are unfair, but they are not listening to the men and women who work and serve in our armed forces if they ignore many of the concerns that have been expressed here this afternoon. Armed forces personnel care about how their families are treated. I urge the Minister to think long and hard about this question: when does he genuinely believe that he properly exercised his duty of care to the parents of those children who died at Deepcut and Catterick? It is about time that we had more than a face-saving device and undertook a proper public inquiry.

David Cameron: I have not participated in an armed forces personnel debate before, and having listened to the speeches I rather feel that I have been missing out. We heard powerful contributions from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who spoke in defence of contracting out and privatisation—one does not often hear that from a Labour Member—and from the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who talked about Gulf war syndrome. I particularly enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who spoke with great wisdom and knowledge about the dangers of cuts to the RAF. I entirely agree with him. I am afraid that my own contribution will be much more mundane and prosaic, concentrating on a couple of issues that particularly matter to forces families in my constituency.
	I apologise to the Minister for missing his opening speech. I am particularly sorry because I know that he visited RAF Brize Norton in my constituency this week. I want to take this opportunity—as, I am sure, would he—to put on the record how much we value all the work done by the armed forces and other personnel at RAF Brize Norton, not just their support for forces overseas but the help they have given with the tsunami appeal and other such things. All hon. Members say how much we value our armed forces, so it is important for us to turn words into action. The forces do so much work for us and there is much more that we should do for them.
	As I have said, RAF Brize Norton in my constituency is one of the largest and most important air bases, and it is becoming more important as staff will be relocated from Lyneham to Brize Norton. When I went there recently, planes and personnel were in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Ivory Coast and elsewhere. As the Minister will know, the base has a huge range of facilities. It has a fleet of VC10s, TriStars and C-17s, and there is the future strategic tanker aircraft to come. It includes the parachute training school, the tactical communications wing and two auxiliary squadrons supporting the RAF on the ground, as well as a number of lodge units.
	Brize Norton is the funnel to convey men and materiel out of the country to wherever they are being deployed. As our role grows, as we do more, as we do what my predecessor Lord Hurd described as punching above our weight in the world, it is important for Brize Norton to have all the facilities that it needs. My point is simple: Brize Norton is becoming a super-base. It is becoming more like a Catterick or a Colchester than what it has been in the past. We must ensure that it has the facilities that go with that status, and that we treat the people who work there well. We should also look at the facilities in the neighbouring town of Carterton.
	Many are far more expert than me when it comes to procurement and equipment, but there are real concerns in the RAF, often relayed to me, about whether our forces will have the planes that are necessary for them to do what is required of them. The issue is continuity of equipment—people are worried about gaps between the decommissioning of one set of equipment and the commissioning of a new set. Everyone says, and I am sure it is true, that mobility and flexibility of forces are what will matter in the future. At the heart of that lie heavy lift and refuelling, which are very much what Brize Norton is all about.
	We clearly need to replace the Hercules fleet, but the A400M has not yet been built and many believe that there is no chance of its arriving on time. We also need to replace the VC10s, which are extremely old, but the future strategic tanker aircraft contract is huge and complicated and it will be difficult to deliver. I would like the Minister to tell us whether the Government are confident that continuity of equipment can be achieved. I would also like to know whether the Government have a plan B lest any of those things do not come to fruition at the intended time. As I have said, refuelling and heavy lift are essential and are at the heart of what happens at Brize Norton. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
	I want to say something about schools and housing. Almost exactly a year ago, I secured an Adjournment debate on forces schools. A vital issue of concern to armed forces personnel is the level of education that their children are getting and whether the schools are adequate for the job. As the Minister knows, there are two types of forces schools. There are those run by Service Children's Education, which are very successful. If SCE were a local education authority, it would be one of the top performers in the country. Then there are normal schools which are part of LEAs, but admit a large number of forces children. I want to talk about the second type.
	In my constituency there are five primary schools in Carterton containing a large number of forces children. I am visiting one, St. John's, tomorrow. There is also Carterton community college. The key issue is what is known as turbulence, or turnover. At some of these schools the number of children arriving and leaving within a year can be as high as 75 per cent. At Gateway school in Carterton, which I visited recently, the turnover is 45 per cent.
	It does not require rocket science to work out that such a high turnover will lead to problems. There is a problem with continuity of teaching, and extra report writing obviously imposes additional costs. There is the problem of integrating new children, particularly those with special educational needs, in a new school. There is a series of issues for Ofsted, which does not always understand the pressures faced by forces schools. There is also the fact that these are forces families, not just any families. Given the situation in Iraq, among others, counselling services—even bereavement counselling—are required. It should be borne in mind that while a man or a woman is away in theatres of action, the family left behind becomes a single-parent family, with all the pressures and problems that that entails.
	In my Adjournment debate, the then Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), said:
	"In response to concerns that were raised, the SCE and the Department are working together to develop the National Association for State Schools for Service Children's Education into an organisation that operates more formally than at present. We hope that it will be an effective organisation representing schools with service children nationally and commenting on policy matters. The schools contacted so far have expressed support for the proposal."—[Official Report, 7 January 2004; Vol. 416, c.100WH.]
	He went on to explain that a national conference was anticipated later in the year. That was all very positive stuff. My question for the Minister today is: what happened next? From what I have discovered, the answer seems to be not much.
	I have here a letter from a teacher in my constituency, who says:
	"In May 2004 we set up regional meetings all around the country and invited Headteachers of schools that had service children along with LEA representatives. The issues that were facing schools were noted from these meetings. We sent a letter to the Minister at the beginning of August 2004. The letter outlined the issues and made recommendations . . . In September 2004 the DfES responded to our letter. Firstly it had not been seen by the Minister and secondly it ignored many of the issues that we raised. At the meeting we asked the DfES representative to give a copy to Charles Clark. This they agreed to do. We cancelled a meeting in November because there had been no response from the Minister and here we are in January with a change of Minister and still no response. My principal concern now is that our concerns and issues may be overlooked and that we may have to start again."
	This is a serious situation for the Minister to take into account. May I suggest that MOD Ministers get in touch with their DfES colleagues and try to push this matter to the top of the appropriate Education Minister's in-tray? One of the most tangible things that we can do for service families is to ensure that their children get a good education. Oxfordshire county council has put some extra money into forces schools, and it is time for the national Government to take the issue more seriously.
	My final point is on housing. The Minister knows that this is a long-running saga in Carterton, and we need to resolve it. The bottom line is that the forces housing in Carterton is among the worst in the UK. The prefab homes were never meant to last this long. We now have a real opportunity to provide better homes for our forces families and a better environment for the town. Almost every services family has a story to tell about the wife arriving, seeing the forces home and bursting into tears. Yet that is where they will have to live for the next few years. Some of the buildings look, from the outside, like Soviet housing in Volgograd; we really need to do better.
	There is a clear answer to be found in the knock-down and rebuild programme, but this private finance initiative scheme has been beset by delays. It has required three bodies to take action: West Oxfordshire district council is dealing with planning and planning gain; Annington Homes is involved in making land available to other bidders; and, above all, the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Housing Executive that must push the process forward. I can now give the Minister an update. West Oxfordshire district council has given outline planning permission for the scheme and costed the section 106 agreements. It has done its bit. Annington Homes has made its land available to the other bidders, Riverside and Tricon, at a transparent price. It is now up to the Ministry of Defence to move things forward. I hope that this issue will get to the top of the Minister's in-tray. It really would make a huge difference to my constituents in Carterton.
	The forces do a great job for us and we must do more for them. Overstretch in our armed forces is getting worse, time at home between missions is getting shorter and the stresses and strains on our forces families are getting more severe. We want to see action being taken and priority being given to these issues. Frankly, it is the least we can do.

Tony Baldry: It is always a pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). I, too, want to make some Oxfordshire-related comments.
	There is clearly a tension between what Ministers in the Ministry of Defence think the armed forces should be doing and what the armed forces can do within the tight restraints of their budget. To understand this tension, we need to take a few steps back to 1997, when the present Government were elected on a manifesto promise to undertake a strategic defence review. It was intended to be the biggest review of the armed forces since the cold war. It was described in a Library briefing as
	"a foreign policy-led review to re-assess the UK's national interests and likely overseas commitments in the post-Cold War strategic environment to 2015, and then to establish how the UK's Armed Forces should be structured and deployed in order to meet those interests and commitments."
	In other words, it is a process to identify budget cuts.
	We then had the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001, which changed the world landscape. Another chapter was hurriedly added to the strategic defence review: indeed, it was titled "A New Chapter" and was published in July 2002. It sought to re-examine the UK's defence in response to the challenges of international terrorism and the issues highlighted by the events of 11 September. The Defence Secretary told the House in a statement on 17 October 2002:
	"Across Government, we have now been set new challenges by international terrorism. We have set in train work to re-examine our defence policy and plans in the light of the terrorist threat demonstrated by 11 September . . . As a result, we published a new chapter to the strategic defence review on 18 July. It shows that the strategic defence review's emphasis on expeditionary operations working with allies was right, but demonstrates—crucially—how best to use our forces against a different sort of enemy: one that is determined, well hidden and vastly different from the conventional forces that we might have expected to face in the past." —[Official Report, 17 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 500.]
	All that represented a conundrum to Ministers. On the one hand, the strategic defence review was supposed to bring significant cuts to the armed forces and the size of the defence budget. On the other, the horrific events of 11 September would lead to additional commitments that UK armed forces would need to undertake. What has happened? On 26 July last year, two years after "A New Chapter", the RAF was cut by 12,000 personnel, the Royal Navy lost 5,000 men and the Army had 5,500 troops axed. Overall, the armed forces are to be reduced by a 10th, with many ships and tanks being scrapped in what is nothing short of a political and moral betrayal.
	Not only were personnel being cut, the kit was also cut. The focus on loss of equipment is especially relevant to my constituency and the MOD facilities based at Bicester and Caversfield. Ministers have been arguing that the armed forces need less kit, and that with less kit come fewer personnel. Ministers perversely claim that such cuts are being made because the UK faces a new threat and that advances in technology mean that a little kit will go a long way. That is what Ministers claim, but few have been convinced.
	Let us consider, for instance, the excellent Defence Committee report late last year on the defence White Paper. It brilliantly summed up the paradox in which the Ministry of Defence finds itself. It states:
	"As the post-conflict stage in Iraq has shown, a great deal more is required to achieve the objectives of an effects-based operation than advanced military technologies in the hands of numerically small forces."
	In other words, a little kit does not necessarily go a long way. Armed personnel still need to be armed and properly kitted out. Despite what the Secretary of State said in his statement on "A New Chapter" about
	"a different sort of enemy: one that is determined, well hidden and vastly different from conventional forces"
	the response to combating the enemy is still strikingly conventional, as we are still witnessing in Iraq.
	The MOD facilities based in my constituency have been crucial to the ongoing operations in Iraq, as they were during the first Gulf war. There are two significant MOD operations in north Oxfordshire: the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Storage and Distribution Centre. During the first days of the war in Iraq, the DSDC dispatched more than 2,700 International Organisation for Standardisation containers of supplies to troops. If those containers were stacked end to end, they would cover the whole length of the M40.
	The DLO, the DSDC and all those who work there are crucial, and continue to be crucial, to UK operations in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, the DSDC was able to deploy more than twice the amount of kit in half the amount of time during the Iraq conflict in comparison with the previous Gulf war. The DSDC and all who work there are clearly demonstrating greater efficiency and effectiveness, but Ministers want their operations severely cut back. They are suggesting savings of 28 per cent.—a huge amount. If Ministers said that they wanted the equivalent cuts of 30 per cent. to social services in Oxfordshire, the community would see huge chunks of services vanish overnight.
	I took a delegation last year from the DSDC in Bicester to meet the Secretary of State, who gave a commitment that any in-house bid put together at MOD Bicester would be fairly considered against bids from just the private sector, but nothing in the defence White Paper or the Secretary of State's subsequent statements to the House suggest that a trading fund for defence logistics has a genuine chance. Yet there are genuine benefits in undertaking a trading fund—it could make the substantial efficiency savings that the MOD wants and preserve jobs at Bicester. Those who advocate a trading fund are confident that it can meet the 28 per cent. savings that the MOD wants.
	The situation at the Defence Logistics Organisation is bleak. No job is safe. The Minister for the armed forces wrote to me at the end of last year to say that the MOD is exploring,
	"best value for money for the taxpayer . . . more efficiency ways of working . . . improving the service provided".
	When Ministers use words such as "efficiency" and "best value", it is often code for cuts being on the horizon.
	Ministers are being coy about how significant the job cuts will be, but we know that there will be cuts and that jobs will be lost. Indeed, in the same letter the Minister made it clear:
	"Based on the work done so far, we estimate we could save"—
	which is synonymous with "cut" in that context—
	"up to 950 posts across the DLO by changing working practices in these functions by April 2005 and at least a further 2,000 posts by 2008."
	That is a large number of jobs to axe. Almost 3,000 lost jobs would wipe out the DLO at Bicester, although I accept that not all the job losses will necessarily happen in my constituency.
	There is a genuine fear that almost all the jobs will be lost in and around Bicester. That is underscored by the Minister's comments about the work that the MOD is undertaking. He said that
	"further work will look at options for incremental collocation, using the existing Abbey Wood site in Bristol as the hub of the MOD acquisition community, and the extent to which the DLO retains staff at other sites".
	None of that is reassuring for local people that jobs are safe. Rather, it suggests that jobs may be secured at Bristol, but not at Bicester. There is a suspicion in the community that Ministers are preparing local people for a soft landing on those job losses.
	In less than four months, we will know the extent of the job losses. The signs are that, overall, more jobs will be lost at Bicester than anywhere else in the country. Ministers have indicated neither how many jobs will be transferred—very few I suspect, given that Bristol already has an extensive DLO operation—nor how long it will be before the jobs are phased out. They have not said what assistance will be given to those who will definitely lose their jobs at Caversfield.
	Why are not Ministers considering whether savings can be made without widespread job losses? The Defence Committee's report stated:
	"We are left wondering whether the Defence White Paper is properly set in the strategic context of Britain's security circumstances, or whether it is more a reflection of what the UK has actually been doing for the last three years, and the existence of a number of legacy systems of whose continuing importance the MoD is uncertain. In other words it is far from clear whether the review process has actually been effects-led, or rather resource driven."
	I suspect that it was entirely resource driven. That description can be applied to almost every aspect of the MOD since the start of the SDR, and certainly to developments at Bicester.
	Much attention has rightly been paid to the bravery of our armed forces in Iraq and there is—again rightly—considerable dismay about the number of regiments that have served in Iraq and the Gulf and are now under threat. However, there are also unseen heroes, who have worked very hard for long hours, often through the night, to make sure that our troops overseas in the middle east and elsewhere are properly kitted out. They have done that without fuss, at great speed, effectively and efficiently. Many of those unseen heroes work at Bicester and Caversfield, yet their jobs are now under serious threat.
	There is a long-standing convention that Ministers do not make controversial announcements around the time of a general election, so if there is to be a poll on 5 May, perhaps Ministers hope that they can delay any announcement until after the election. However, I hope that, whenever such an announcement is made, it is not sneaked out. That is the least those unseen civilian MOD staff at DLO and DSDC deserve.

Andrew Robathan: I have no intention of commenting on the individual cases, Madam Deputy Speaker, except to say that the disciplinary processes of the British Army have brought those soldiers there and we await the outcome and the verdict of the court martial. Those young men are innocent until proven guilty and that is why I think that the media coverage has been disgraceful and hysterical.
	I was the chief of staff for the prisoner of war guard force in the first Gulf war, when the circumstances were very different. The problem we had with soldiers then was the fear that they would not be tough enough with the prisoners of war. We were worried that the guards might be overwhelmed if there was any form of rebellion, because they showed far too much sympathy for the prisoners of war, who had of course been fighting us only a few days earlier.
	Today we debate this Government's policies on armed forces personnel. As Members of Parliament we have a duty to say what we believe to be right in the interests of our country and of our servicemen and women. We have a duty to question Government policies that are self-evidently not working. The Government have eroded public trust in their policy on Iraq and led people to distrust their intentions for our armed forces.
	Before I proceed, I want to cover some of the points raised in the debate. Given the time restraints, I cannot comment on all the speeches. The Minister of State, as ever, made a robust speech. He took a few interventions. However, any speech lasting more than 30 minutes, plus a bit of time for interventions is rather long, and the Minister went on for 51 minutes. Perhaps he could raise the matter in his private office and ask his speechwriters to be a little more concise and less verbose.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) made an important point about electoral registration to which I want to return. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) created some confusion on both sides of House about the history of regiments at Rorke's Drift. My son, who is 8, has a video of "Zulu"; I shall re-watch it and lend it to the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Gentleman made a much more important point when he talked about the £80 million hangar being built at St. Athan. The Minister has been talking about waste; we can identify £80 million of waste at St. Athan.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made an excellent point about the lack of depth in the reserve, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I want my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to know that I used to take parachute and free-fall courses at Brize Norton—[Interruption]—a long time ago. I know that Carterton has next to no facilities and that the armed forces housing is dreadful, so I was appalled to discover that it had not been renewed over the 20 years since I was last there.
	I turn to the disgraceful cuts in the armed forces. The Government pretend that their manpower cuts are sensible, reasoned stages in an inexorable process towards a high-tech, 21st-century defence policy. Absolute rubbish. The manpower implications chapter of last summer's "Future Capabilities" White Paper airily begins:
	"Transforming and restructuring the armed forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century will inevitably lead to reductions in manpower."
	Why is it inevitable? The document certainly does not go on to say so. I remind Ministers that the USA is currently increasing the number in its Army by more than 20,000 because it realises the needs for boots on the ground. Those "reductions" are, and always will be, cuts. They have taken place against a backdrop of undermanning in the armed forces and of hugely increased international commitments in a time of conflict. Technology cannot replace real men and women on the ground.
	Advances in technology have permitted the Royal Navy to reduce the size of crews on its ships, but I want to give the House the comments of the First Sea Lord on that score. He said:
	"We are no longer able to drive those numbers down as much as we want to in our ships and our platforms because we need sentries, we need people to go on board and search ships, we need to leave, for want of a better word, prize crews on board . . . All of this adds to the numbers."
	Personnel cuts mean that the fewer remaining sailors are required to spend more time at sea, which places increasing strains on their family life, making it increasingly difficult to stem the haemorrhaging of skilled personnel from the naval service.
	The latest naval manning agency report reveals that the Royal Navy has a current personnel deficit of 6 per cent. and speaks of a
	"failure to retain highly trained and capable sailors"
	and says that the Royal Navy faces
	"a total trained strength deficit for the foreseeable future".
	That is before the current planned cuts of 1,500 personnel from the Navy's ranks.
	As Lord Craig pointed out on Monday, we sent more ships to the Falklands in 1982 than we currently have left in the whole Royal Navy. The crews of HMS Chatham and HMS Diligence, who have been doing such excellent work in Sri Lanka following the tsunami, know well that our traditional ability to give humanitarian assistance will be impaired by the fate of ships such as Diligence, our only forward repair ship, which is shortly destined to sail quietly into the pages of history when it is decommissioned in 2006. It will be followed shortly afterwards by six frigates and destroyers and many other ships.
	In the Royal Air Force, 7,500 personnel are being axed, with all the implications for pilots, as well as boots on the ground—sentries and so on—and greater pressure on those who remain. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) described that as a hollowing out of the RAF.
	Although the cuts in the infantry battalions at a time of overstretch are absolute lunacy, which has been mentioned by various Members, the Army's trained establishment will be reduced by 6,500 by 2008. How can such cuts be justified? The Government are asking our forces to do more with fewer personnel—soldiering on the cheap. As Lord Guthrie warned only on Monday in the other place,
	"the Army will . . . be too small for what the Government expect it to do."—[Offficial Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 564.]
	The Government's tour interval target for overseas deployment is still 24 months, but we heard last week that the Royal Highland Fusiliers are deploying back to Iraq, even though they were there back in June or July, so that does not make 24 months so far as I am concerned. We must have more troops to fulfil the huge number of tasks that the Government keep piling on our troops.
	I should like to turn briefly to the reserves, to which a couple of my hon. Friends referred. The purpose of having reserves and reservists in all three services is so obvious that it should not need spelling out, but the men and women of our reserve forces currently provide 20 per cent. of our ground forces in Iraq. The fact that they are being used means that they are no longer in reserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport raised this issue. Let us suppose that the current situation were to escalate, that the Northern Ireland were to flare up again—as the Minister will know, that is very possible—and that there was some unforeseen conflagration, where are the reserves in all three services that every military strategist would always say are a fundamental necessity?
	The Government have made it clear that the Territorial Army will play an integral role in all our future military operations. In the light of that, what are the Government doing to enable the reserves to meet the demands placed on them? Currently, members of the TA have been sacked from their civilian jobs while they have been serving in Iraq. How can the Government expect members of the TA to join and serve overseas if they have to worry that they will be unable to support themselves and their families when they return home? Furthermore, from speaking to members of the TA, I am told that officers and non-commissioned officers in particular are unwilling to remain in the TA, especially when they have done one tour in Iraq, because their reserve service threatens their civilian careers.
	Almost 140,000 service voters were registered in England and Wales in 2002, but the following year that figure had fallen by 65 per cent. to 49,000—similar falls have taken place across the country—as a result of the Representation of the People Act 2000. In a response to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, the Under-Secretary said that the situation was not as bad as it seemed. I hope that he will address that issue when he stands up to speak in a minute or two, because we owe it to those who are risking their lives for this country to ensure that every effort is made so that they have the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights and, indeed, to comment on the Government's policies.
	Will the Under-Secretary give a commitment that all members of the armed forces at home and abroad will be given the opportunity to register themselves and their families in time for a May general election? It is not good enough to witter on about Defence Council instructions, of which there are thousands each year. A simple instruction, perhaps a DCI, needs to go down the chain of command that every soldier, sailor and airman is to be given a service voter registration form within the next month. When the Under-Secretary rises to defend himself on this matter, I hope that he will tell us that that will happen. Incidentally, he wants to try to visit the MOD website, where it is almost impossible to find out how servicemen might register to vote.
	Finally, I should like to turn to the operation in Iraq—where we are, of course, the junior partner—and to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). The Daily Telegraph reports today that the Government are trying to get President Bush to produce a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. That is very sensible. We must ask what is our long-term strategy in Iraq. How long will it go on?
	As someone who used to write essays on this at staff college, I should like to ask why we have ignored the lessons that we learned so painfully over the years in Malaya, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. In particular, why have we ignored the lessons on counter-insurgency that were summed up by Sir Robert Thompson's five principles following Malaya? Those basic principles should be followed even though the operation is American-led, but they have not been followed.
	If the operation is part of a war on terror in which we are a junior partner, what is the long-term strategy for the war and what are the next steps? Will we broaden the war to other countries, whether they are referred to as outposts of terrorism or instability? Will the Under-Secretary tell the House the road down which we are proceeding? The armed forces, hon. Members and the general public want to know exactly the long-term aim of the Government's policy on the war on terror and Iraq.

Ivor Caplin: May I say how much I have enjoyed our debate on personnel? We have heard 12 Back-Bench contributions. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) inevitably mentioned Haslar, and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) talked about the Yorkshire regiments. I shall come back to the speech made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) later. We heard from the hon. Members for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry). We also heard what one might call new contributions from the hon. Members for Witney (Mr.   Cameron) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who are both welcome in joining what has become a rather exclusive club of hon. Members who speak in defence debates.
	May I also say how much I enjoyed the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—I shall return to his speech later—and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes)? My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) was inevitably in the Chamber, as he always is for such debates.
	I want to try to answer several of the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), although I hope that he will accept that I cannot possibly answer them all in the time available. I begin by welcoming his comments on behalf of the official Opposition about how the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and I regard the troops who have been injured. Like both my right hon. Friends, I always make seeing troops who are recuperating from injuries a key priority of any visit to Catterick, Cyprus or anywhere else.
	This week's press has been thoroughly misleading, so I want to clarify the situation for the House. The latest available figures show that 790 service personnel have been evacuated from Iraq, but that number includes the full range of injuries from relatively minor shrapnel wounds and sprained ankles through to broken limbs and more serious injuries caused by enemy action. It is worth noting that some injuries resulted from road traffic accidents and sport. Our priority is for our personnel to make the speediest possible recovery, and I am glad that all parties have recognised that important fact this afternoon.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked a general question about investigations. Our troops in Iraq continue to perform outstandingly, but they are not above the law. It remains Ministry of Defence policy to scrutinise for evidence of criminal wrongdoing every instance when the actions of British service personnel might have led directly to the death or injury of Iraqi civilians. As at 6 December 2004, the number of investigations into such incidents that had been launched by service police since the start of the conflict stood at 160. The majority of those cases involved incidents in which United Kingdom forces had returned fire after being attacked. Only 19 cases related to alleged incidents involving Iraqis in British military custody, and only seven of those 19 contain any evidence of deliberate abuse. Let me say again that more than 65,000 service personnel have served in Iraq, yet only 36 have been reported for offences in connection with specific incidents by the service police, and only seven have so far been charged.
	I hope that it will be helpful if I make a series of updates on personnel issues. I shall start by updating the House on operational effective military discipline and service law, and the new Bill to which I referred in our previous personnel debate.
	As hon. Members know, we have been working for some time on modernising and harmonising the separate systems of service law governing our three services. Subject to parliamentary time being available, we intend to introduce legislation in the next Session to create, in place of the present three systems, which are sometimes different, a single system of service law that will better serve the armed forces in the years ahead as they increasingly train and operate together. In advance of that, the Defence Committee is currently examining our proposals, and I am grateful for its constructive interest—indeed, I shall appear before it next month.
	Discipline is at the heart of service law. The authority of the chain of command depends on powers to enforce discipline to ensure the fighting effectiveness of those under command, and to be effective that authority must apply equally at all times and wherever forces are serving. It is of the utmost importance therefore that the services have a system of law that is fair, expeditious and consistent and that is subject to appropriate safeguards in order to protect the rights of service personnel. That is what we will seek to introduce in the next armed forces Bill.
	We are also investing in technology with a new military personnel management modernisation programme, the joint personnel administration. The programme will introduce simplified and harmonised personnel policies and processes to each service in turn during 2006.
	In partnership with leading academics, we are implementing a long-term scientific study to develop a coherent set of measures of individuals' expectations, attitudes and values and to monitor how those change over time. The study, "Measuring human capital", will get under way next month in partnership with King's college, and it should enable us in the longer term to target our resources and further develop our personnel policies to maintain satisfaction and improve retention of our people, which is an issue that many hon. Members have mentioned this afternoon.
	We have embarked on a major programme to transform the management of the civilian work force. The people programme will put the MOD at the leading edge of human resources practice and maximise the civilian contribution to defence by providing modern, efficient internal human resources services. The programme will generate financial savings and will release hundreds of civilian staff as part of the reduction announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last summer.
	A number of hon. Members asked about service family accommodation, which is an issue that is often raised. On service families, this year's target was to upgrade 500 properties, but we have now extended it to 2,000 properties by increasing resources, and we expect to meet that target. Of the long-term core stock of 42,000 properties, around 23,000 are currently at standard 1 and a further 18,000 are at standard 2. As hon. Members have pointed out, it does not mean that there is room for complacency, but it is progress.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) raised the issue of single living accommodation. Again, we are making rapid progress. More than 1,100 bed spaces have been completed, and a further 2,100 are being designed. We expect a total of 4,000 bed spaces across several sites to be constructed very soon.
	The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and a number of other hon. Members raised the issue of reserve forces. Hon. Members know that we recognise the important contributions that reservists and their employers make, and we intend to continue to improve the support that we provide. Together with the work that we are undertaking on integration, we are very conscious of our responsibilities to ensure that we do not endanger the commitment and dedication of our reserve forces or the tremendous support that we have received from employers. We have been working to clarify the way in which the MOD uses the reserve forces and to establish a set of aspirations that the MOD can work towards. Based on the lessons learned from Operation Telic, we are examining the optimum period of notice that we should aim to give reservists to report for mobilisation, and the frequency with which we can reasonably mobilise reservists on a compulsory basis. I expect to make further announcements on that in the House next month.
	In his excellent opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the early service leavers initiative, which was instigated as part of the veterans strategy. It helps to improve resettlement for those leavers who are vulnerable to social exclusion. For those leaving with less than four years' service or those discharged administratively, there is now a mandatory unit-level brief and a one-to-one interview to assess vulnerability to social exclusion. Early service leavers are also advised on available housing assistance through the joint services housing authority organisation and SPACES—the single persons accommodation centre for the ex-services. A proper resettlement umbrella is therefore now in place, covering all service leavers.
	I hope the House will agree that the veteran's lapel badge, which Members will note is worn by many of their veteran constituents, has been a tremendous success. Indeed, more than 35,000 have been dispatched since its launch last May. From 1 February, I am extending the badge's availability to second world war widows, but I want to go further still. Transition from service to civilian life is an important area of policy for the Ministry of Defence, so I am announcing that from 1 February a veteran's badge will be included as part of the leavers' packs, subject to certain conditions. I hope that that reinforces the high esteem in which the country holds, and the thanks that we owe to, those who fought 60 years ago, along with today's armed forces personnel, who do such a first-class job.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made an outrageous attack on the work done by this Government since 1997 on Gulf veterans' illnesses. Perhaps I can refer him to the Hansard for Tuesday 18 January, when I responded to an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). I set out then in detail the action that has been taken since 1997.
	In what may have been a slip of the tongue, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to four suicides at Deepcut. He will of course be aware that the verdict was one suicide, with two open verdicts and one case still to be determined.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the opportunity to raise the proposed closure of the Worktrack programme in Northern Ireland.
	In the budget for the Province announced by the Minister with responsibility for finance and personnel in late autumn last year, a major reduction in funding of Worktrack was announced for 2005–06, and no funding thereafter, which means its complete closure.
	Worktrack is unique to Northern Ireland and allows people classified as long-term unemployed the opportunity to get back into full-time employment. It provides paid employment, often with commercial employers, for six months and, crucially, it targets the economically inactive, many of whom are returners to work, and those not eligible for the new deal programme.
	People in my constituency who have participated in the scheme have told me about how the programme helped to restore their self-esteem and dignity and gave them a real chance to go out and once again earn a wage. It has given many people out of work for extended periods the chance to train on the job. For many, the best place to gain employment skills is in employment. Many of those participants have started paying tax and national insurance contributions once again. The programme is popular, and in my view, it was working, with 50 per cent. of participants placed in sustainable employment.
	The programme is delivered in Northern Ireland by almost 20 lead providers, supported by a significant number of secondary providers throughout the Province. As I understand it, there are 27 contracts over a three-year period, representing every council area in Northern Ireland and running through to September 2006.
	As a result of the announcement on the programme, more than 1,200 participants per year will be deprived of the chance to take the first step back into the labour market under the scheme. In addition, 200 permanent core jobs will be lost. The loss to the Northern Ireland economy is estimated at some £300,000 per week, which comes to half the cost of running the scheme. The loss to the social economy of Northern Ireland should also be taken into account, and the consequent loss of community resources, skills and capacity building.
	I know from my experience in this area, of which the Minister will be well aware, the importance that the Government attach to building community capacity in deprived areas of Northern Ireland, especially in Belfast, and particularly in my constituency in north Belfast, where a dedicated community action unit has been set up by Government. One of its main tasks is to build community capacity in areas where it is underdeveloped or non-existent.
	The Government should be aware that the lack of consultation with providers before the decision was announced has done real damage to relations between the voluntary sector, the community and Government. Given that there was little or no criticism of the way in which the programme was working—quite the reverse—the announcement came as a bolt out of the blue. Many people were taken by surprise at the Minister's announcement both in relation to this and the learndirect programme. The Government should explain why the decision was made with blatant disregard for the process of consultation.
	In my own area, Community Aid 2000 is the Worktrack lead provider for north Belfast, east Belfast and Newtonabbey, and has 177 people on placement. Between October 2003 and November 2004, 347 people, well over half of whom were women, started on the programme. Since 1999, it has assisted 600 people back into work. The contracts held by Community Aid 2000 are used to assist people in the most difficult and challenging areas, with some of the worst deprivation and unemployment in the Province. It works with secondary partners in many of those communities. Many of those partners and other community groups have made representations to me, as they are concerned and angry about the decision to end the Worktrack programme. In addition, small businesses have been affected, and the Northern Ireland branch of the Federation of Small Businesses has expressed concern that people in Northern Ireland generally have been let down by the Government. In a press release of 16 November 2004, it says that the closure and other cuts in training schemes will have a negative impact on small businesses, which make huge investments in their infrastructure and staffing to enable them to offer a quality training provision. The federation fears that jobs will be lost because of the announcement and is worried about the fact that there was no consultation with providers before the decision. Only the other day, it relayed its concern and anger at the announcement about axing learndirect as well.
	We are told that the reason for closing Worktrack is that unemployment in the Province has fallen significantly in recent years and that provisions such as the new deal and training for work will still be available for people who are unemployed or economically inactive. According to the Northern Ireland labour market statistics for August last year, however, more than 550,000 people are economically inactive, of whom 9 per cent. or 50,000 want to work but do not satisfy the availability or job search criteria to be classified as unemployed. Worktrack is the only wage-based programme to target those people. Just before Christmas, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who has responsibility for employment and learning, said:
	"the labour market has improved substantially since the introduction of Worktrack, and in the context of the current economic climate with lower levels of employment and more job opportunities the programme was considered to have a lower priority than other competing demands."
	I fully understand the problems arising from a finite budget on which there are competing demands, but I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) outlined those competing demands and explained what criteria were applied in assessing the allocation of resources for training and skills provision in Northern Ireland.
	The announcement of Worktrack's closure appears to be at variance with other aspects of Government policy. For instance, the skills strategy for Northern Ireland, which was announced just four days after the Worktrack announcement, suggests that it is Government policy to prioritise engagement with the economically inactive in Northern Ireland. The strategy says that, although unemployment is at a record low, that masks a high proportion of people who are long-term unemployed. Three out of 10 adults of working age in Northern Ireland are outside the labour market altogether and are not adding to economic productivity.
	The neighbourhood renewal strategy identifies areas in Northern Ireland for special assistance, where many of Worktrack's secondary providers are already operating and where the scheme is operating very successfully. The draft economic vision report states:
	"since 1998 employment levels are up, unemployment rates are down and Gross Value Added has grown steadily. Against that must be balanced the highest economic inactivity rates in the UK."
	What we see emerging from the strategies and papers that the Government themselves have produced is that, while we have historically low unemployment, much of what remains is stubborn long-term unemployment, and the low unemployment tends to mask high economic inactivity and low levels of qualifications. Many of those who are unemployed or economically inactive lack skills and are at some distance from the labour market.
	I find it odd—indeed, it is contrary to some of the objectives that they have set out in their strategies and papers—that the Government should be pointing to those issues, but deciding to close down a programme whose purpose is to try tackle some of the underlying problems. I simply do not understand the rationale, and neither do the providers, the people who are participating in the programme or small businesses. It can only be a question of saving money, but as we have already indicated, the amount involved is relatively low, but it has produced enormous impacts in meeting the needs of people in highly deprived areas.
	In the area covered by Community Aid 2000, there is no existing provision for providing an employment option to people outside jobseeker's allowance other than Worktrack. The new deal is concerned with those on the unemployment register and training for work is a benefit-plus training programme.
	The fact is that Worktrack or something very similar will still be needed in Northern Ireland, and we need to know today what the Government propose to do. The Minister needs to address whether what is proposed is the right and sensible option. People who are presently economically inactive or on benefits other than jobseeker's allowance are being deprived of a proven and effective route back to work. Thus far, we have heard nothing from the Government apart from some vague comments about competing demands and suggestions that employment is now in relatively good shape across the Province, although Belfast, North has the third highest unemployment of any constituency in the Province. We need some more detail from the Minister about what is going to happen. There have been some hints from the Minister with responsibility for employment and learning about further and higher education programmes. Can we have more details on this matter?
	As the Minister will know, there is cross-party opposition in Northern Ireland to the announcement that has been made. As far as I am aware, all the major political parties in Northern Ireland have expressed concern and opposed it. The Government should take note of that opposition. As the Minister may be aware, the Government were defeated just a few moments ago in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee on top-up variable fees in Northern Ireland. There was major cross-party opposition from Northern Ireland on that issue—all the parties expressed their opposition.
	I hope that the Government will look afresh at this issue and spell out in detail what they intend to do. They cannot simply close the programme and not replace it with something similar. Why not leave in place a programme that has been effective, successful and popular, and let the providers get on with the excellent job that they have been doing?

Angela Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) on securing the debate and on the reasoned way in which he expressed his concerns. I know that he has had correspondence with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has dealt with the issues that cause him great concern. I put on record the apologies of my hon. Friend, who was detained on other business and is probably on his way to the Chamber.
	It may be helpful if I outline the major factors and rationale for the closure of the Worktrack programme. The decision was taken against the backdrop of a significantly improving economy, with significant falls in levels of unemployment over recent years. In that economic climate and with increasing job opportunity, Worktrack was proving an expensive means of supporting and creating employment. In the future priorities of the Department for Employment and Learning, there was a change of focus towards a more targeted approach to unemployment and increasing emphasis on improving skills on an individual basis of personal support. I shall expand on that.
	Worktrack was introduced in August 1999 when claimant unemployment was 6.2 per cent. Its objectives were to provide training and employment opportunities for those who were not suited to, or who were ineligible for, other labour market intervention programmes. That meant that it focussed largely, though not exclusively, as the hon. Gentleman noted, on the long-term unemployed and economically inactive. Worktrack is a temporary employment programme providing 1,000 places every 26 weeks, with the key aims of developing the skills and competencies of those engaged on the programme to help ease them back into the workplace, mainly by boosting confidence. Many who have taken part see it as a means of gaining experience of a modern workplace, new skills and work-related disciplines without the perceived high pressure of what some might term a "real" job. That is not to belittle the work that participants do on those placements.
	I am fully conscious of the valuable contribution that Worktrack has made in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. He spoke of 50 per cent. of participants progressing to employment. The rate was not quite as good as that, but it was significant—an average of 36 per cent. of participants have progressed into employment since the introduction of the programme. That is a commendable record and one to be proud of. However, we must recognise that as circumstances change, policies must change to reflect them.
	Let me summarise the main arguments. First, the Government believe that the economic context in Northern Ireland has changed significantly. The employment market is much more buoyant than in former times and there are many more opportunities to re-enter the labour market. Secondly, given the changed circumstances in respect of employment, Worktrack, costing in the region of £13,000 per job, is an expensive means of creating jobs. It is important to realise that many of the people may have been offered jobs without the support of Worktrack, although that is difficult to quantify. Thirdly, given the changed circumstances, the Government considered carefully the recommendations of the employability task force report and the research behind the skills strategy, and decided that a more targeted approach to employment barriers, including the promotion of reskilling and upskilling on an individual basis was the way forward.
	We have sought to create the conditions for increasing employment in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, by promoting economic stability, developing a policy framework that incentivises both entry to and progression in work, and putting in place new arrangements to assist those who are not in work. Economic stability has brought growth and the delivery of an increasing number of job opportunities. Improving incentives through reform of the tax and benefit system and the introduction of the national minimum wage have helped to make work pay. Support for those without work through the new deal and through the rolling out of the jobs and benefits offices across Northern Ireland is providing people with the help they need to move into work. The outworking of our skills strategy and the change in approach of the Employment Service will assist further in removing or reducing barriers to work for individuals.
	The economy in Northern Ireland has made significant progress. The gross value added—GVA—per head rose in real terms by 17.2 per cent. between 1997 and 2002, the last year for which there are full figures. In the construction industry, it rose by some 70 per cent. compared with 45 per cent. in the United Kingdom, and in manufacturing by 21.5 per cent. compared with 3.8 per cent. in the United Kingdom.
	It may be helpful to consider some of the information on the working age population, which in Northern Ireland has risen by 60,000 people, or 6 per cent., since 1997. An estimated 721,000 people are in employment, the highest number on record. Unemployment has fallen from 8.1 per cent. of the work force in 1997 to 4.7 per cent. in the summer of 2004—a fall of some 26,000. Northern Ireland has experienced a greater proportional fall in unemployment than the UK as a whole. Since the introduction of the new deal in 1998, claimant unemployment has fallen by 51 per cent. to its current level of 2.7 per cent.
	That is not to say that all the issues involved in employment and employability are resolved. It is one thing to talk about statistics and figures, but every single percentage hides a real story of people who are desperately looking for work. The hon. Gentleman made that case when, in speaking about his concerns on behalf of his constituency as well as wider issues in Northern Ireland, he made it clear that there are still issues to be addressed. I assure him that there is no lack of commitment from the Government and that our changes of emphasis and delivery mechanisms will ensure that people have help and support in getting back into work.
	Let me deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. He mentioned low skills and qualifications. The skills strategy includes proposals to offer a free first level 2 qualification. Acquiring skills will be an important dimension of employment policy.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that other provisions such as the new deal do not deal with the same issues as Worktrack. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has taken that on board and is examining ways of making all the remaining provisions accessible to all, including the economically inactive.I accept that Community Aid 2000 does an excellent job, and the Department will consult it on alternative developments. It can play a role in insisting that we continue to help those in most need who are looking for work.
	The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the loss of community resources. That is not an objective for the Employment Service, and the Department for Social Development provides essential resources for community development. Having said that, the Department plans to talk to providers on an individual basis to offer practical advice and assistance on the needs of the client group that may not be assisted following the withdrawal of Worktrack. The hon. Gentleman said there was a lack of consultation, but providers were notified in time to contribute to the budget consultation process.
	I hope that that deals with some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. The strongest argument that I would put to him is that the Department is carefully and actively trying to ensure that those who would have been covered by Worktrack will be covered by the new deal and other schemes. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's constituency has particular problems as regards unemployment. The unemployment rate is higher in his constituency, at 4.2 per cent., than in Northern Ireland as a whole, and male unemployment is 6.9 per cent. in his constituency. However, his constituency has the highest ranking in Northern Ireland in terms of local jobs, with a job density index—the number of jobs divided by the resident population of working age—of 1.48, compared with the Northern Ireland average of 0.75.
	In broad terms, the picture is clear. Employment in Northern Ireland is higher than it has ever been, unemployment is lower than it has ever been, new businesses are growing at an increased pace, more people are engaging with further and higher education than ever before and the numbers taking up apprenticeships are growing. We want to do everything that we can to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents participate in that prosperity. That is the context in which we must look at the ending of the Worktrack programme. We are trying to ensure that all those who would have been part of it can progress to other forms of training and skills upgrading.
	Significant resources are committed to tackling those needs, most notably through the new deal with its package of financial support and opportunities. In certain circumstances, prospective Worktrack clients may have access to the full range of provisions already offered through the various new deal schemes. While it remains a priority for the Department to help people into employment, there is also a change in focus towards individualised targeting of need rather than the sustaining of direct employment programmes. In line with that change of focus, the Department will develop a menu of more flexible provision to help people into work. We know of plans in the rest of the United Kingdom to test a targeted approach described as building on the new deal, or BOND. We plan to do something similar in Northern Ireland.
	It is essential for change to build on the strengths of the new deal and other programmes, as well as identifying new ways in which assistance for all who need it—but particularly those faced with the most intractable barriers to employment—can be improved. That can best be achieved through an approach that is targeted more deliberately at meeting the specific needs of individuals. Such an approach should make provision available to all groups, based on a flexible menu of modular provision.
	Managers and personal advisers will be able to tailor provision according to their local labour markets and their clients' needs. Central to that will be working more closely than ever with partners in the statutory, private and voluntary sectors. The elements of the menu will be available to all clients, irrespective of the benefit that they receive. Personal advisers operating in the jobs and benefits office network will choose from the menu the type of support that meets their clients' needs most appropriately.
	The Department is currently testing the client-centred approach in four pilot targeted initiative—TI—areas that have been designated because of their high levels of long-term unemployment and social deprivation. Two key components of the initiative are the introduction of a transitional employment programme—TEP—which targets the very long-term unemployed and the creation of job assist centres—JACs—which aim to strengthen community outreach services. TIs will also develop a co-ordinated service that builds on partnerships between statutory agencies, local voluntary and community organisations and employers, and will be tailored to individual needs through increased flexibility and access to employment measures. An evaluation of that approach is planned for March 2006, with the completed report expected in November of that year.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has agreed to test a series of measures designed to reform the way in which people claiming incapacity benefits in Northern Ireland are supported in their return to work. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of those measures, which are known as pathways to work. They reflect measures currently being piloted in seven areas in Great Britain. The intention is to introduce Northern Ireland pilots in autumn 2005 and additional funds have been secured for that work.
	Pathways to work programmes focus on individuals and offer tailored support to help them return to work. The structure for new claimants includes a series of intensive mandatory work-focused interviews, new rehabilitation services provided by the health service, improved links with new deal for disabled people job brokers, and improved financial incentives—a return-to-work credit of £40 a week, with pre-employment training.
	Early performance indicators from Great Britain suggest that between 15 and 20 per cent. of participants have taken up elements of the support package. Furthermore, in some of the pilot areas there has been an increase of between 8 and 10 percentage points in off-flows from incapacity benefits after four months on benefit. Those monitoring the pilot schemes are also reporting significant interest among existing incapacity benefits claimants, who are not currently required to take part in the programme.
	In Northern Ireland, as in Great Britain, the probability of someone ceasing to claim incapacity benefits to enter employment is significantly reduced as long as the person continues to receive the benefits. We shall be working with those who have been receiving them for up to two years.
	We should all recognise, however, that some people are faced with specific barriers that must be dealt with before they can gain access to employment. Later this year, work will begin to help people throughout Northern Ireland receiving working age benefits who are trying to move towards employment but, without additional specialist support, would be unlikely to succeed because of their personal circumstances. The programme will target those with drug and alcohol misuse problems, homeless people and those with a criminal record.
	I trust that what I have said gives some idea of the scale of the work that the Department wishes to undertake, and that the hon. Gentleman recognises that difficult decisions were made during the planning of budgets. I understand that all lead providers have been contacted and that the Department's desire is for the transition from Worktrack to be managed as smoothly and sensitively as possible. Worktrack was highly successful in times of high unemployment, but the time has come to look at other ways of addressing the needs that clearly exist. I assure the hon. Gentleman that what is being done and what is planned for the future represent, in the current economic climate, a realistic and deliverable alternative to meet the needs of the unemployed—
	The motion having been made at Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.